Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality...Element 6.1- Quality of Compliance Monitoring Reports (CMRs) Element 7 - Identification of alleged violations Element

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality

State Review Framework Report

1

Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON STATE PROGRAM AND REVIEW PROCESS

III. STATUS OF OUTSTANDING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS REVIEWS

IV. FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS

V. APPENDICES:

A. STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS REVIEWS B. OFFICIAL DATA PULL C. PDA TRANSMITTAL D. PDA ANALYSIS CHART E. PDA WORKSHEET F. FILE SELECTION G. FILE REVIEW ANALYSIS H. CORRESPONDENCE I. ACRONYMS

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Major Issues The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 conducted the SRF review of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ’s) enforcement programs performance for the Clean Air Act, Stationary Source; (CAA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant, Discharge, Elimination System (NPDES). In addition to this VADEQ review, EPA Region 3’s NPDES Enforcement Branch also conducted reviews of two Commonwealth Agencies delegated to implement portions of the NPDES program; the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), delegated the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) and storm water construction programs, and the Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy (DMME), delegated the mining program. The reviews for these agencies are contained in separate reports. The following are the major issues identified in the DCR report: MOA DCR does not have a formal memorandum of agreement (MOA) with EPA for implementation of the delegated NPDES program. In 2004, the Commonwealth of Virginia’s General Assembly adopted legislation that transferred the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) construction activity and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) storm water permitting and enforcement responsibilities from the VADEQ to DCR. EPA approved DCR's program in December 2004 allowing for the program’s transfer to DCR on January 29, 2005. Although EPA and DCR do not have a formal MOA, Region III and DCR did enter into a FY 2012 Letter of Agreement which sets forth EPA’s expectations for MS4 and construction stormwater program implementation. Data: The facility permit data and compliance monitoring data for the facilities regulated by DCR is not reported to the national database. DCR maintains data for these facilities in their internal agency data base. Inspection Coverage: DCR did not inspect or evaluate the 11 facilities with major MS4 permits. These permits are expired and have been administratively extended by DCR. Timely and Appropriate Enforcement: Based on the review, DCR does not issue formal enforcement actions and prefers to seek compliance through informal means. DCR typically issues informal enforcement actions or notices of non-compliance (NOCA) to permittees that are continuously out of compliance until final compliance is achieved. The State Review Framework (SRF) Round 2 review for the Commonwealth of Virginia included reviews for the NPDES construction stormwater and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) programs. EPA reviewed files and data from fiscal year 2009 (FY 09).

3

In 2013, after the SRF review had been conducted, the Virginia General Assembly transferred authority for the construction stormwater and MS4 programs from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to the State Water Control Board (SWCB). EPA approved the transfer by letter dated July 2, 2013. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) now implements these programs on behalf of the SWCB. The recommendations for the construction stormwater and MS4 programs in the report are no longer applicable for implementation by DCR. EPA has been working with VADEQ as it incorporates and begins implementation of the construction stormwater and the MS4 programs. Listed below are SWCB and VADEQ activities that address deficiencies found in the FY 09 review.

• The SWCB has an existing MOA with EPA under which VADEQ is currently implementing the construction stormwater and MS4 programs.

• The SWCB has promulgated regulations for the Virginia Storm Water Management Program (VSMP), the construction stormwater general permit, and the MS4 program. These regulations became effective on October 23, 2013. On December 17, 2013, the SWCB adopted revisions to the VSMP regulation (effective February 26, 2014) and to the construction stormwater general permit regulation (effective July 1, 2014).

• VADEQ is updating its guidance documents to serve as the foundation for implementing the construction stormwater and MS4 programs. It is also developing a schedule for auditing operations in Virginia with active MS4 individual and general permits.

• VADEQ is developing compliance standard operation procedures for its construction stormwater program and will use requirements of the 2007 Clean Water Act NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy (section 2.C.3) along with Virginia’s Risk Based Inspection Strategy to write effective guidance.

• VADEQ is developing a management plan for EPA review to address the DCR data deficiencies and will submit for approval within 180 days of the finalization of the SRF report.

• The SWCB is currently authorized to enforce both the construction stormwater and MS4 programs. Enforcement of the MS4 program follows the same guidance and procedures as other VADEQ VPDES permits. VADEQ has incorporated the construction stormwater program into its general enforcement guidance by providing staff with program-specific model documents (Warning Letter, Notice of Violation, and Consent Order). VADEQ has continued the DCR penalty policy, until the VADEQ penalty policy is revised following public notice and comment. VADEQ enforcement procedures provide for escalating, timely and appropriate enforcement actions.

The following are the major issues identified in the DMME report: Completion of Commitments – In October 1983, EPA approved a modification of Virginia’s NPDES authorization to allow DMME’s predecessor to assume NPDES responsibilities related to coal mining and reclamation facilities. EPA’s approval followed a Virginia legislative change and incorporated by reference a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the State Water Control Board (SWCB) and DMME’s predecessor. –

4

Data Completeness, Accuracy and Timeliness – DMME is not a direct user of the Permits Compliance System (PCS), the national data base for NPDES permit facility and compliance monitoring information. DMME does maintain a state data base, Water Trans to track compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. The PCS Policy Statement requires that the minimum WENDB data elements be directly entered or transferred via interface to the national database. Inspection Coverage DMME adheres to the SMCRA requirements; however, the inspections do not include a comprehensive evaluation of NDPES requirements. Summary of VADEQ Programs Reviewed The problems which necessitate state improvement and require recommendations and actions include the following: CAA Program : None RCRA Program: None NPDES Program: Element 2 – Data Accuracy Areas meeting SRF program requirements or with minor issues for correction include: CAA Program: Element 2 - Data accuracy Element 3 - Timeliness of Data Entry Element 4 - Completion of commitments Element 6.1- Quality of Compliance Monitoring Reports (CMRs) Element 7 - Identification of alleged violations Element 8 - Identification of High Priority Violators (HPVs) Element 9 - Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance Element 10 - Timely and appropriate action Element 11 - Penalty calculation method Element 12 - Final penalty assessment and collection RCRA Program: Element 1 – Data Completeness Element 2 - Data accuracy Element 3 - Timeliness of Data Entry Element 4 – Completion of Commitments Element 5 – Inspection Coverage Element 6- Quality of Compliance Monitoring Reports (CMRs) Element 7 - Identification of alleged violations Element 8 - Identification of High Priority Violators (HPVs) Element 9 - Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance

5

Element 10 - Timely and appropriate action Element 11 - Penalty calculation method Element 12 - Final penalty assessment and collection NPDES Program: Element 1 – Data Completeness Element 3 - Timeliness of Data Entry Element 4 - Completion of commitments Element 5 – Inspection Coverage Element 6- Quality of Compliance Monitoring Reports (CMRs) Element 7 - Identification of alleged violations Element 8 - Identification of High Priority Violators (HPVs) Element 9 - Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance Element 10 - Timely and appropriate action Element 11 - Penalty calculation method Element 12 - Final penalty assessment and collection The good practices include: CAA Program: Element 1 – Data Completeness Element 5 – Inspection Coverage Element 6.2 Quality of Compliance Monitoring Reports RCRA Program - None CWA Program -None

6

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

ON STATE PROGRAM AND REVIEW PROCESS The SRF is a program designed to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts oversight of state and EPA direct implementation, compliance and enforcement programs in a nationally consistent and efficient manner. Reviews look at 12 program elements covering: data (completeness, timeliness, and quality); inspections (coverage and quality); identification of violations, enforcement actions (appropriateness and timeliness); and, penalties (calculation, assessment and collection). Reviews are conducted in three phases: analyzing information from the national data systems; reviewing a limited set of state files; and development of findings and recommendations. Considerable consultation is built into the process, to ensure EPA and the state understand the causes of issues, and to seek agreement on identifying the actions needed to address problems. The reports generated by the reviews are designed to capture the information and agreements developed during the review process in order to facilitate program improvements. The reports are designed to provide factual information and do not make determinations of program adequacy. EPA also uses the information in the reports to draw a “national picture” of enforcement and compliance, and to identify any issues that require a national response. Reports are not used to compare or rank state programs. This report documents the second round SRF Program review of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) . VADEQ compliance monitoring and enforcement program is implemented across six regional offices. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 conducted the SRF review of VADEQ’s enforcement programs performance for the Clean Air Act, Stationary Source; (CAA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant, Discharge, Elimination System (NPDES). This report summarizes findings from the review and planned actions to facilitate program improvements. The review evaluated enforcement data and files from Fiscal Year 2009. Each program chose two to three regional offices to visit and review files for this review. The air program conducted file reviews in two regional offices, the Northern (NRO) and Blue Ridge (BRRO). The RCRA program conducted file reviews in VADEQ’s Southwest Regional Office (SWRO), Northern Regional Office, Blue Ridge Regional Office. The region’s NPDES program conducted file reviews in two regional offices, the Northern Regional office and the Southwest Regional Office. The Office of Enforcement and Permits Review conducted reviews of air files at VADEQ’s Woodbridge and Blue Ridge regional offices during SRF round 2. These regional offices were chosen because the Region did not visit them in the first round, limited travel resources, and

7

through the Region’s regular conference calls with VADEQ discovered potential problems in these two regional offices. The Woodbridge regional office was experiencing turnover of inspectors. The Office of Enforcement and Permits Review decided to conduct file reviews in this region to determine if the turnover was having an impact on the quality of their inspections, quality of inspection reports, and their ability to make HPV determinations. Additionally, they wanted to meet with the regional office to discuss the problem with high inspector turnover to help determine a resolution to the problem. VADEQ combined the West Central (Roanoke) and South Central (Lynchburg) regional offices into the new BRRO. The Office of Enforcement and Permits decided to review this regional office to determine if the combination of these regional offices was having an impact on their compliance and monitoring performance. The Office of Land Enforcement visited regional offices in Virginia that were not visited during the first round of SRF. The following criteria to select regional offices during round 1:

• Identified in SNC status during the review year • Identified as having more than one evaluation during the review year • Identified as having formal and/or formal enforcement action during the review year • Identified as having a penalty during the review year.

The Office of Land Enforcement conducted file reviews in VADEQ’s Southwest Regional Office, Northern Regional Office, Blue Ridge Regional Office. These offices were not visited in round one of the SRF. Additionally, the Blue Ridge Regional office now includes the territories previously covered by the Lynchburg and Roanoke offices. The NPDES program reviewed files in the Northern Regional Office and the Southwest Regional Office. The Northern Regional Office was reviewed because of the universe of facilities in that geographic area of Virginia and the enforcement activity. The Southwest Regional Office was reviewed because the data review revealed a significant difference in enforcement activity in this regional office compared to the other five regional office enforcement activity.

A. GENERAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW Agency Structure: VADEQ consist of a Central Office located in Richmond, VA and six regional offices. VADEQ administers the Clean Air Act, Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act, and the National Pollutant, Discharge, Elimination System. The Central Office included the program offices for Air, Water VPDES, Hazardous Waste and the Division of Enforcement. Regional activities include permits, remediation, air quality, water quality and compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. The six regional offices responsible for these duties include:

• Southwest Regional Office-Abingdon, • Blue Ridge Regional Office - Roanoke and Lynchburg, • Valley Regional Office-Harrisonburg,

8

• Northern Regional Office-Woodbridge, • Piedmont Regional Office- Glen Allen, and • Tidewater Regional Office-Virginia Beach.

Compliance/Enforcement Structure: The Central Office program offices and the Division of Enforcement provide guidance, coordination, and review of regional office compliance and enforcement activities. The VADEQ program offices also negotiate grant commitments (including inspection and other compliance monitoring commitments), and they transfer data to EPA’s data systems. VADEQ’s Division of Enforcement and enforcement staff in the regional offices are responsible for carrying out VADEQ’s mission in achieving its enforcement goals. The regional offices are responsible for conducting compliance and enforcement actions within their regional boundaries. The regional offices are principal points of contact with the community, issuing permits, performing inspections, and executing administrative orders. The Division of Enforcement becomes involved in enforcement actions to ensure consistent application of state laws and regulations, to take the lead in certain difficult or multi-regional cases, and/or to provide expertise and policy guidance. In addition, the Division assists and coordinates successful statewide implementation of VADEQ’s enforcement programs by developing appropriate enforcement policies and procedures, providing appropriate training to staff, and reviewing regional implementation. The Division prosecutes adversarial administrative actions with regional support. The Virginia Office of the Attorney General (OAG) provides all legal services in civil matters for the Commonwealth, including the conduct of civil litigation for the three departments. Within the Air Quality Division, is the Office of Air Compliance Coordination (OACC). The OACC does not have direct authority over the regional offices but develops most of the policy and guidance on compliance with rules, regulations and orders of the Department and tracks enforcement actions. VADEQ’s Division of Enforcement also provides guidance and oversight for Air and other media. The State Water Control Board is responsible for administrating the Virginia Water Control Law. The board adopts regulations and considers special orders when resolving violations of its regulations and permits that have had a related public hearing. Day to day administration of the board's programs is delegated to the Department of Environmental Quality. Roles and responsibilities: The OACC is responsible for assisting regional staff in their work, as well as managing federal fiscal commitments, providing training opportunities, participating in policy development, and assessing program effectiveness. Central Office and regional staff work on all VADEQ enforcement cases and are not restricted to the programs evaluated in the SRF. There is one Enforcement Director for the Central Office Division of Enforcement, and three Regional Directors serve as enforcement managers for their regions (SWRO, BRRO and VRO). In two regions (BRRO and SWRO), Air compliance

9

managers and staff negotiate Air Program consent orders. Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) are reviewed and approved by the Central office. The Central office also provides enforcement assistance and oversight as necessary to regional office staff. Central office serves as liaison with State Attorney General’s office and EPA for joint actions. VADEQ’s official compliance monitoring and enforcement files are maintained in the regional offices. However, VADEQ is in the process of developing a state-wide electronic filing system. Each regional office provided copies of all files requested by EPA for the SRF. Each regional office is responsible for handling enforcement cases. When a violation is found an Informal Correction, Warning Letter (WL), or NOV is sent to the violating source depending on the severity of the violation. When a minor violation can be corrected in 30 days or less, staff may use an Informal Correction to address non-compliance from a source or facility. An Informal Correction is appropriate when a minimal amount of effort is required to secure compliance. Warning Letters are the appropriate response following the discovery of the majority of alleged violations. A WL is appropriate if the violation can be corrected within 90 days and if there are no emission violations. A NOV is issued if the alleged noncompliance is chronic or acute or of such significance that a case is appropriate for enforcement action and that a penalty may be warranted. Other Agencies included/excluded from review: The NPDES Enforcement Branch also conducted reviews of two Commonwealth Agencies delegated to implement portions of the NPDES program; the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), delegated the municipal separate storm sewer (MS4) and storm water construction programs, and the Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy (DMME), delegated the mining program. The reports for these agencies can be found on the SRF tracker. Resources: Funding for the Air Compliance Program comes from Title V fees collected. Penalties collected go into the Virginia Environmental Emergency Response Fund which is used by the State for the purpose of emergency response to environmental pollution incidents and for the development and implementation of corrective actions for pollution incidents. EPA Section 105 grant requires a state match and provides some funding, and use of these funds is limited to activities that are not covered under Title V. Air Compliance – VADEQ has 42 full-time or partial positions that perform Air compliance or Air monitoring tasks (some staff do both). These are located as follows: BRRO = 9 (one vacant), NRO = 8, PRO = 8, SWRO = 5, TRO = 8 (one vacant), and VRO =4. There are Regional Air Compliance Managers in 5 regions (BRRO, NRO, PRO, SWRO, and TRO). Central Office has 5 positions in the Office of Air Inspections Coordination. Water VPDES Compliance – VADEQ has 21 Wastewater Inspectors who perform the onsite inspections and compliance reviews. These are located as follows: BRRO = 4, NRO = 3, PRO = 4, SWRO = 2, TRO = 4, and VRO = 4. Five (5) inspector positions have been eliminated over

10

the past several years, and there are currently 2 vacant inspector positions. In addition, there are 4 Chief Inspectors: BRRO = 1, SWRO = 1, TRO = 1, and VRO = 1. In Central Office, the Water Program has 5 positions dedicated to inspections and operator training (1 vacant). Three other Central Office staff work on CEDS or PCS. Hazardous Waste Compliance– VADEQ has 9 positions that perform Hazardous Waste Compliance activities. These are located as follows: BRRO = 3, NRO = 1, PRO = 2, SWRO = 1, TRO = 1, VRO = 1. Other staff, including Regional Waste Program Managers (6), spend a portion of their time on hazardous waste compliance. There is 1 coordinator for Hazardous Waste Compliance and a Hazardous Waste Office Director, who spends part of her time on Hazardous Waste Compliance. One staff member is dedicated to RCRAInfo, and part of her supervisors time is spent on Hazardous Waste data. Enforcement –VADEQ has 23 regional enforcement staff positions. These are located as follows: BRRO = 5 (1 vacant); NRO = 4 (1 vacant); PRO = 5 (1 vacant); SWRO = 1; TRO = 5 (1 vacant) and VRO = 3 (1 vacant). In addition there were 6 civil enforcement staff positions in the Central Office Division of Enforcement, which were all filled in FY 09. Central Office and regional staff work on all VADEQ enforcement cases and are not restricted to the programs evaluated in the SRF. There is one Enforcement Director for the Central Office Division of Enforcement, and three Regional Directors serve as enforcement managers for their regions (SWRO, BRRO and VRO). In two regions (BRRO and SWRO), Air compliance managers and staff negotiate Air Program consent orders. Staffing/Training: All DEQ vacancies are prioritized for hiring by VADEQ management. Hiring follows state practices mandated by the Virginia Department of Human Resources Management and VADEQ’s Office of Human Resources. Each position is identified by class, and the requirements, duties, and qualifications for each position are described in an Employee Work Profile (EWP). As part of a yearly evaluation, staff and managers agree on Personal Learning Goals for the coming year, including identification of desired in-house or outside courses. The requested courses are put into a computerized system. A Training Committee, with members from program and enforcement staff, set training priorities for the coming year, based in large part on the courses identified in the EWPs. Staff are notified when a training course from their Personal Learning Goals is being offered. VADEQ appears to have a very strong training program for its compliance monitoring personnel. Employees are encouraged to develop a customized Employee Development Plan (EDP) using a template available on-line. If an employee fails to do this, the Office of Training Services is notified with an automatically generated email. The Office of Training Services uses the EDP to notify employees of course schedules and registrations. Registration for classes is done through the VADEQ Learning Management System. Data reporting systems/architecture: CEDS is the reporting system used by VADEQ, except for VADEQ Hazardous Waste program. CEDS is a multi-media, Oracle-based system located

11

on the desk-top of VADEQ staff. It is the primary data system for VADEQ to report compliance monitoring and enforcement data for Air Stationary Sources and NPDES. Data entered into CEDS is done by inspectors, compliance engineers, ACMs and enforcement staff. Virginia uploads data from CEDS to AFS every Friday. The AFS Data Steward for VADEQ has the responsibility of being the data manager for AFS. If there are edits and/or updates to VADEQ’s data, the Data Steward is contacted and would then forward the issue on to the appropriate regional staff for action. Approximately 25% of the Data Stewards time is spent on AFS related activities. The Data Steward does use AFS directly as needed. The VADEQ Hazardous Waste program is the implementor of record for all RCRAInfo modules, including the Financial Assurance module, and enters data directly into EPA’s RCRAInfo as the database of Records. In 2010, VADEQ’s enforcement program developed an Access database called Enforcement Tracking Database (ETD) for consistent tracking and monitoring of enforcement actions across all programs. ETD was not in operation FY09. MAJOR STATE PRIORITIES AND ACOMPLISHMENTS

• Priorities:

1. Enterprise Content Management During Round 1, the VADEQ Air Program had previously utilized an electronic document storage system (Keyfile) to back up physical paper files and has recently migrated to a web-based system (IBM ECM FileNet) to store source files as the file of record. The Air Program was selected as one of two media to develop and pilot the new system. During Round 2, the majority of Air Compliance documents were readily available for review in ECM; however, since Enforcement related documents (those following NOV issuance) had yet to migrate to electronic storage, it was decided the file review would address actual paper files. The VADEQ Enforcement Division (a multimedia program in Virginia) is now in the process of moving to this system and the Air Division is performing quality assurance activities before destruction of paper files. This migration has been a significant accomplishment for the VADEQ Air Program, and will remain a priority in the foreseeable future.

• Accomplishments:

1. Risk-Based Inspection Strategy – Virginia DEQ has implemented a pilot Risk-

Based Inspection Strategy (RBIS), which is being utilized to focus the agency’s inspection resources in areas where needed based on defined risk factors. RBIS is being used in all three programs of the SRF.

2. The VADEQ SRF Programs, all of VADEQ Enforcement, and several other

VADEQ programs are converting their files to electronic documents in VADEQ’s

12

Electronic Content Management (ECM) System. Electronic documents will replace most paper documents as the public record. This will allow greater transparency and better access to the documents by both VADEQ staff and the public.

3. Water VPDES staff assisted EPA and Department of Justice attorneys in

negotiating a major consent decree with a sanitary sewer service district that operates 13 sewage treatment plants and serves 1.6 million people. The decree addressed sanitary sewer overflows within the district’s service area. The decree also required the payment of $900,000 in civil penalties for past overflows. Although the decree was entered in FY 10, much of the work was done in FY 09.

4. VRO staff were presented with special awards from EPA for the cooperative

settlement of a large Air case, which involved a major modification to a source in a PSD area without a corresponding permit amendment and excess emissions. Although the order was entered in FY 10, much of the work was done in FY 09.

5. Enforcement staff has developed a series of Model Orders to standardize

structure, organization, references, and schedules of compliance for consent orders in all media programs. The orders have suggested language for returning the most common violations to compliance.

6. Water VPDES staff undertook two sector based initiatives in FY09: (1) Mercury

Switch storm water inspections at automobile parts facilities; and (2) Power Plant Coal Ash Impoundment inspections (as a result of the Tennessee River Coal Ash spill).

7. Water VPDES staff established linkage in CEDS and PCS for inspection type and

the ability to load single-event violations in CEDS and PCS. Also, VADEQ Water staff developed a new CEDS Inspections Module Manual for the new and enhanced Water Inspections screen. The new module can not only track inspections but also “informal” compliance actions and their resolution.

1. Communication

VADEQ's Air Program and Enforcement Divisions not only hold regular calls, meetings, and workshops with Central Office and Regional staff, but also utilize the Agency's Intranet to openly disseminate goals and procedures and document their basis. Links to the most current information and guidance are readily available to all staff seeking answers to common questions. Developing and updating this technological resource is a significant accomplishment for technical staff and will remain a priority in the future.

2. Emissions Reductions via Enforcement Action Most enforcement actions include injunctive relief that may directly or indirectly lead to reductions in pollutant emissions. However, some stand out based on

13

sheer quantity. For example, the Consent Order issued 7/16/2009 to American Electric Power resulted in a potential emissions reduction of nearly 44,000 tons per year of SO2.

3. Title V Annual Compliance Certification Short Form

In response to the considerable resources dedicated to generation of these reports by sources and review of these reports by VADEQ Air Compliance staff, OACC and regional ACMs researched additional options to meet federal reporting requirements. Negotiations with EPA Region 3 culminated in approval of simplified reporting requirements designed in accordance with the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee recommendations. Due to recent budgetary concerns, this project was considered a significant priority and is now seen as a significant accomplishment from the perspective of both VADEQ staff and the affected source population. Specifically, quality of reviews has benefited because efforts can be focused on the critical components of the no longer voluminous reports and review time has been reduced significantly which allows for resources to be redirected to other areas of the program.

• Best Practices:

1. The VADEQ Hazardous Waste Program has implemented an internal audit

program building upon the EPA’s SRF. The internal audit focuses on elements of the SRF including: inspection report completeness and timeliness sufficient documentation of noncompliance, appropriate SNC designation and consistency between regions as well as components of data management accuracy and timeliness.

2. The e-DMR Reporting System is a web-enabled information system that allows regulated facilities to send electronic e-DMRs to the DEQ. This system is designed to provide an alternative to submitting handwritten or paper-based DMRs in a faster, more efficient manner, and requires less processing for both the regulated facilities and DEQ. As a fully operational electronic reporting system, all of the necessary legal, security, and electronic signature features have been included for this system to serve as a completely paperless reporting system.

3. In the VADEQ Water VPDES Program, the program and regional offices review

and verify violation and non-compliance reports pulled from EPA’s database on a regular basis. Data verification for all other data families is regularly conducted by the Central Office program staff. The revision of the CEDS VPDES Individual Permits Manual has provided user clear instructions in data entry and reduced data discrepancy.

4. In the VADEQ Hazardous Waste Program, program staff produce monthly

compliance and enforcement reports for the regional offices in addition to mid-year and annual reports to improve the data quality and timeliness. There are periodic calls on data management, and VADEQ participates in nationwide calls

14

on RCRAInfo. VADEQ staff have access to the current status of facilities as reflected in RCRAInfo.

5. In the VADEQ Water VPDES Program, program staff have implemented

improvements to the CEDS Inspection Screen to provide better inspection tracking, including risk-based inspections, compliance follow-up, and multimedia inspections.

C. PROCESS FOR SRF REVIEW Use of Elements and Metrics Found in the SRF Review: The SRF contains thirteen nationally consistent review “elements,” which cover inspection/evaluation quantity and quality, the quality of the inspection/compliance monitoring reports, the timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement actions and data quality, accuracy and completeness. Data metrics are a common set of measures pulled from the national databases of record for the three programs that provide state specific numbers, and in some cases national averages, for elements where a data stream exists. File review metrics are primarily assessed through file reviews (because there is no national data stream). National averages are meant to provide a big picture “ball park” of a particular agency’s performance against that of other agencies. The results of these metrics may on their own not determine areas of weakness or strength, but they do serve as indicators to focus discussion and dialogue on particular successes or potential problem areas with agencies during the review. File review metrics help to capture compliance and enforcement information not available in the national databases. The data metrics fall into one of the four categories below.

1. Goal - Where possible, the data metrics are set up to align with goals or expected activities that are included in national guidance, policy, or regulation. The metrics also provide context showing the national average so that agencies can understand when they are not meeting the goal whether that appears to be a problem unique to that agency or whether a more global issue exists.

2. Review Indicator - the SRF uses either the national average or the absence of any

activity at all to indicate possible performance issues. If a state is below a target indicated for a review indicator, this is not a final determination that there is a problem, but rather serves as a flag for further investigation through file review.

3. Information Only - metrics are used to track the overall effort level for the complete

universe of regulated sources – even when a specific national goal does not exist. Other information-only metrics focus on new data requirements as a way to determine what work will be needed in the future to fill in the data set with complete information. Some information-only metrics are based upon non-required data that not all agencies enter into the national data system.

15

4. Data Quality - Most of the data metrics under Elements 1, 2, and 3 focus on data quality or timely data entry. Significant differences in numbers should be understood, and corrective action plans developed.

Virginia Review Period: The review period for this SRF review was FY2009. Kick-Off meeting with VADEQ: May 24, 2010. Region 3 attendees included Samantha Beers (Director Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice), William C. Early (Deputy Regional Administrator), Ingrid Hopkins (EPA SRF Review Team), Betty Barnes (SRF Regional Coordinator) and La Ronda Koffi (VA State Liaison). DEQ managers included Rick Weeks (Chief Deputy Director), James Golden (Deputy Director for Program Development), Melanie Davenport (Enforcement Director), and John Ely (SRF Manager) Key Dates for Virginia Review Air:

1. The Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA) data pull from EPA’s Online tracking Information System (OTIS) was completed on 03/25/10.

2. On 04/08/10, the Data Metrics complete with the EPA’s PDA was sent to VADEQ electronically.

3. On 04/08/10, EPA sent VADEQ the selection of files to be reviewed as part of the file review metrics.

4. On 05/04/10, EPA Region III met with VADEQ to discuss VADEQ's comments to EPA's PDA.

5. From 05/04/10 to 05/06/10, EPA Region III conducted an on-site file review at VADEQ’s NRO in Woodbridge, VA.

6. On 05/18/10, EPA Region III conducted an on-site file review at VADEQ’s BRRO in Lynchburg, VA.

7. On 05/19/10, EPA Region III conducted an on-site file review at VADEQ’s BRRO in Roanoke, VA.

8. On 5/24/10, EPA Region III met with Management of VADEQ in Washington, DC to kick off the Regional Virginia SRF.

9. EPA held conference call on July 26, 2010 with VADEQ management to discuss preliminary findings.

10. Preliminary draft was sent to VADEQ for comment on 8/12/10. 11. On 9/2/10 VADEQ submitted comments on preliminary draft to EPA.

Key Dates for Virginia Review RCRA: VA RCRA PDA data pull - 4/8/10 PDA sent to State - April, 2010 File selection sent to State 0 4/29/10 Date of file review - 6/21/10 to 6/25/10 and 7/12/10 to 7/15/10 RCRA draft to State - October, 2010 Key Dates for Virginia Review NPDES:

16

Data Pull/PDA: June 25, 2010 VADEQ PDA Response: August 27, 2010 On-Site Review: August 2-4, 2010 (NRO) On-Site Review: May 7-8, 2012 (SWRO)

Communication with Virginia:

On May 4, 2010, personnel from EPA met with VADEQ to discuss VADEQ's comments to EPA’s PDA for Air data. During the on-site file reviews, discussions were held with VADEQ Air Compliance Staff, Enforcement Staff, and their Managers as individual files were reviewed. Subsequent to the on-site review, the Review Team communicated via telephone or e-mail with VADEQ to resolve specific questions/concerns. The NRO NPDES files was provided to VADEQ on July 28, 2010. EPA and NRO staff and managers met in Woodbridge for an opening conference and to commence the review on August 2, 2010. During the opening conference, an overview of the objectives and outcomes of the Round 2 SRF was discussed. An August 4, 2010 a close-out conference was between the EPA SRF Team’s and the NRO/DEQ SRF Team during which EPA shared its preliminary findings. Initial findings focused on addressing permits that need to be inactivated in the data system and ensuring that penalty calculations appropriately consider injunctive relief and economic benefit. In order to ensure that enough files had been selected for a review of the Commonwealth’s NPDES program, EPA selected an additional Regional Office to review. EPA worked with Central Office and SWRO to select a representative number of files to review. EPA and SWRO staff met in Abingdon, Virginia to conduct the opening conference and commencement of the Round 2 SRF on May 7, 2012. An overview of the SRF was provided; general information exchange and program discussions were had and concluded with questions and answers. On May 8, the closeout conference was held with the participants in attendance. An accounting of preliminary findings was presented. The finding were primarily framed around outstanding compliance schedule violations, addressing the inactive permits that remain active in the data system, incorrect facility address data, and erroneous inspection and enforcement data identified for a few permittees. Lead contacts for the SRF review Air: EPA Lead: Marcia Spinks Virginia Leads: Central Office: Jerome Brooks Northern: R. David Hartshorn Blue Ridge: Frank Adams Lead contacts for the SRF review RCRA: EPA RCRA SRF lead – Carol Amend State RCRA SRF lead - Leslie Romanchik

17

Lead contacts for the SRF review NPDES: Ingrid Hopkins, EPA, Region III (reviewed NWRO & SWRO files) Christopher Menen, EPA, Region III (reviewed NWRO files) Edward Stuart, Water Compliance Manager, VA DEQ, NRO Bryant Thomas, Water permits Manager, VA DEQ, NRO Sarah Baker, VA DEQ, NRO John Ely, VA DEQ, Central Regional Office Stewart Phipps, Water Compliance Manager, VA DEQ, SWRO Ralph T. Hilt, Enforcement/Compliance Manager, Sr., VA DEQ, SWRO Bobby Doss, Coordinator-Inspections, VA DEQ, SWRO Ruby Scott, Compliance Auditor, VA DEQ, SWRO

III. STATUS OF OUTSTANDING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS REVIEWS

There are no outstanding recommendations from the first round SRF completed in Virginia.

18

IV. FINDINGS Findings represent the Region’s conclusions regarding the issue identified. Findings are based on the Initial Findings identified during the data or file review, as well as from follow-up conversations or additional information collected to determine the severity and root causes of the issue. There are four types of findings, which are described below:

Finding Description

Good Practices

This describes activities, processes, or policies that the SRF data metrics and/or the file reviews show are being implemented exceptionally well and which the State is expected to maintain at a high level of performance. Additionally, the report may single out specific innovative and noteworthy activities, process, or policies that have the potential to be replicated by other States and that can be highlighted as a practice for other states to emulate. No further action is required by either EPA or the State.

Meets SRF Program Requirements

This indicates that no issues were identified under this Element.

Areas for State* Attention *Or, EPA Region’s attention where program is directly implemented.

This describes activities, processes, or policies that the SRF data metrics and/or the file reviews show are being implemented with minor deficiencies that the State needs to pay attention to strengthen its performance, but are not significant enough to require the region to identify and track state actions to correct. This can describe a situation where a State is implementing either EPA or State policy in a manner that requires self-correction to resolve concerns identified during the review. These are single or infrequent instances that do not constitute a pattern of deficiencies or a significant problem. These are minor issues that the State should self-correct without

Areas for State * Improvement – Recommendations Required *Or, EPA Region’s attention where program is directly implemented.

This describes activities, processes, or policies that the metrics and/or the file reviews show are being implemented by the state that have significant problems that need to be addressed and that require follow-up EPA oversight. This can describe a situation where a state is implementing either EPA or State policy in a manner requiring EPA attention. For example, these would be areas where the metrics indicate that the State is not meeting its commitments, there is a pattern of incorrect implementation in updating compliance data in the data systems, there are incomplete or incorrect inspection reports, and/or there is ineffective enforcement response. These would be significant issues and not merely random occurrences. Recommendations are required for these

19

Clean Air Act Program Findings from the Virginia 2010 SRF Review [CAA] Element 1 – Data Completeness

Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are complete. Element + Finding Number

Finding All date metrics under element 1 were found to be at the national goal and well above the national average.

1.1

Is this finding a(n) (select one):

X Good Practice Meets SRF Program Requirements Area for State Attention Area for State Improvement (Recommendation Required)

Explanation of the Finding

There were 14 more operating majors (1a1) than Title V majors (1a2). All of the 14 operating majors without a Title V program in 2009 were verified to be accurate (e.g., Title V permit submitted but not issued). VADEQ developed an Enforcement Document Transmittal Memorandum to be used in transmitting potential HPVs to VADEQ’s Central Office. All of the information required to be included in the HPV pathway (e.g., discovery date, HPV Criteria, violating program, violating pollutant, Day Zero etc.) is included in this transmittal memorandum. The Central Office reviews the memorandum for completeness and forwards a copy along with the NOV to EPA’s Regional State Liaison Officer. Once the new HPV pathway is in AFS, the EPA Regional State Liaison Officer reviews the pathway for accuracy and completeness. Finally, CEDS does not allow the addition of an air program (i.e, MACT, NESHAP and/or NSPS) without specifying a subpart. Through the use of these tools, EPA expects VADEQ to continue to maintain a high level performance in this area.

Metric(s) and Quantitative Value

1a1 (AFS Operating Majors (Current)): 269 1a2 (AFS Operating Majors with Air Program Code = V (Title V) (Current)): 255 1c4 (CAA Subprogram Designation: % New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/05): National Goal – 100%; National Average – 83.8%; VADEQ – 100% 1c5 (CAA Subprogram Designation: % National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/05): National Goal – 100%; National Average – 42.2%; VADEQ – 100% 1c6 (CAA Subprogram Designation: % Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/05): National Goal – 100%; National Average – 92.8%; VADEQ – 100% 1h1 (HPV Day Zero (DZ) Pathway date: % DZs with discovery action/date) National Goal – 100%; National Average – 49.5%; VADEQ – 100% 1h2 (HPV Day Zero (DZ) Pathway date: % DZs with violating pollutant) National Goal – 100%; National Average – 75.0%; VADEQ – 100% 1h3 (HPV Day Zero (DZ) Pathway date: % DZs with HPV Violation Type Code(s)) National Goal – 100%; National Average – 78.5%; VADEQ – 100%

20

Action(s)

None

State’s Response

21

[CAA] Element 2 – Data Accuracy

Degree to which data reported into the national system is accurately entered and maintained (example, correct codes used, dates are correct, etc.). Element + Finding Number

Finding The majority of the data reviewed by the EPA review team was found to be accurately entered and maintained in AFS.

2.1


Good Practice X Meets SRF Program Requirements Area for State Attention Area for State Improvement (Recommendation Required)


Except for some minor inconsistencies between two of the files and AFS, the data found to be accurately reflected in AFS. In addition, VADEQ was found to be above the national average and at or near the national goal for all data metrics under this element.


2c (MDR data accurately reflected in the national data system (AFS)): 95% 2b1 (Stack Test Results at Federally-Reportable Sources - % Without Pass/Fail Results ( 1 FY): National Goal – 0% ; National Average – 1.5%; VADEQ Result - 0%;

Action(s) None

State’s Response

22

[CAA] Element 3 – Timeliness of Data Entry

Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are timely. Element + Finding Number

Finding VADEQ is at the national goal and/or well above the national average in entering MDR data into AFS in a timely manner

3.1




For Compliance and Enforcement MDRs, VADEQ inputs > 90% of the data in a timely manner. . Note that while VADEQ is more than double the national average in entering HPVs into AFS in a timely manner, they are short of the national goal of 100%. This metric improved in the 2 years following this SRF and EPA Region 3 continues to work with VADEQ to improve the timeliness in which HPVs are getting entered into AFS.


3a (Percent HPVs Entered ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)) National Goal - 100%; National Average – 32.0%; VADEQ Result – 64.3%; 3b1 (Percent Compliance Monitoring related MDR actions reported ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1FY): National Goal - 100%; National Average – 52.6%; VADEQ Result – 95.3%; 3b2 (Percent Enforcement related MDR actions reported ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)): National Goal - 100%; National Average – 67.3%; VADEQ Result – 91.6%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

23

[CAA] Element 4 - Completion of Commitments. Degree to which all enforcement/compliance commitments in relevant agreements (i.e., Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs), Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), categorical grants, CMS plans, authorization agreements, etc.) are met and any products or projects are completed. Element + Finding Number

Finding All commitments in the Oct. 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) were completed by VADEQ in the review year (i.e., FY2009).

4.1




VADEQ completed all of their commitments in its FY2009 CMS plan and all commitments specified in the Oct. 2005 MOU.


4a Planned evaluations (full compliance evaluations (FCEs), partial compliance evaluations (PCEs), investigations) completed for the review year pursuant to a negotiated CMS plan): 100% 4b (Planned commitments completed): 100%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

24

[CAA] Element 5 – Inspection Coverage Degree to which state completed the universe of planned inspections/compliance evaluations (addressing core requirements and federal, state and State priorities). Element + Finding Number

Finding VADEQ met or exceeded all planned inspections/compliance evaluations.

5.1




VADEQ met or exceeded all national goals and/or was above the national average for all data metrics within this element.. VADEQ’s existing Risked Based Inspection Strategy (RBIS) enabled VADEQ to target additional SM-80 sources for inspections based on their potential risk to the environment while still meeting their goal for CMS Major FCE coverage. The potential risk is determined on a risk-based protocol included in RBIS. In addition, every inspector’s work description/performance plan includes a core responsibility to inspect 100% of the on-site inspections by September 15. Finally, VADEQ’s ASOP -6 (Title V Report/Certification Evaluations) dated 3/1/02 gives detailed guidance on how to conduct a timely Review of a facility’s Title V Annual Certification. Through the use of these tools and additional Data Quality assurance activities, EPA expects VADEQ to continue to maintain a high level performance in this area.


5a1 (CMS Major FCE Coverage (2 FY CMS Cycle)): National Goal - 100%; National Average – 87.5%; VADEQ Result – 100% 5b1 (CAA Synthetic Minor 80% Sources (SM-80) FCE Coverage (5 FY CMS Cycle)): National Goal - 60%; National Average – 83.0%; VADEQ Result – 99.6% 5e (Number of Sources with Unknown Compliance Status (Current)): National Goal - NA; National Average – NA; VADEQ Result – 3 5g (Review of Self-Certifications Completed (1 FY)): National Goal - 100%; National Average – 93.9%; VADEQ Result – 100%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

25

[CAA] Element 6 – Quality of Inspection or Compliance Evaluation Reports Degree to which inspection or compliance evaluation reports properly document observations, are completed in a timely manner, and include accurate description of observations. Element + Finding Number

Finding 35 of 37 CMRs reviewed included all elements required under § IX of the CMS.

6.1


Good Practice Meets SRF Program Requirements X Area for State Attention Area for State Improvement (Recommendation Required)


In the Northern Region, the majority of the CMRs contained language such as "the source appears to be in compliance" instead of more definitive language such as "the source is either in or out of compliance". In general, the CMRs were well written. All but two of the 37 compliance monitoring reports (CMRs) reviewed included all of the required elements under § IX of the CMS. One of the CMRs did not mention an active HPV at the time of the FCE in the compliance and enforcement history section. Another CMR did not reference the emission units in a single section, thus making it unclear if all of the emission units were included in the FCE.


6a (Number of files reviewed with FCEs): 37 6c (% of CMRs or facility files reviewed that provide sufficient documentation to determine compliance at the facility): 95%

Action(s)

Guidance and/or policy should be provided throughout the Commonwealth to ensure consistency in how staff prepare CMRs in order that accurate and definitive compliance status is found within the CMR as well as in the transmittal letter to the source.

State’s Response

VADEQ has developed templates to ensure all elements are included in FCE reports, and will continue to work to ensure references to compliance history (including current HPV status) and emissions units are addressed in the reports. VADEQ’s current system used to document FCE reports requires staff to select an overall inspection result (“In Compliance” or “Out of Compliance”) for the report consistent with the determinations made for each applicable requirement addressed within the report, which is clearly and succinctly presented in the header of the inspection report. Regarding the qualifying language in some reports, VADEQ regional staff have been historically sensitive when documenting observations and initial compliance determinations to avoid making formal case decisions, which are generally reserved to the more formal enforcement process. VADEQ will continue to work to avoid the potential for perceived ambiguity when documenting compliance and enforcement activities.

26

[CAA] Element 6 – Quality of Inspection or Compliance Evaluation Reports Degree to which inspection or compliance evaluation reports properly document observations, are completed in a timely manner, and include accurate description of observations. Element + Finding Number

Finding All FCEs reviewed had documentation in the files to show that they contained all of the elements of the FCE, per the CMS.

6.2




All 37 FCEs reviewed contained sufficient information in the CMR and/or the file to make a compliance determination. In addition all of the FCEs were completed in a timely manner. VADEQ’s Field Operations for Air Inspectors provide guidance for preparing, and conducting an FCE. CEDS generates an inspection report template for a given facility to assure FCE accuracy and completeness. The template includes but is not limited to a complete list of applicable requirements, permit conditions, and regulated sources. The inspector is required to document his or her observations and indicate the compliance status for each applicable requirement. In addition, a March 14, 2008 memorandum to Regional Air Compliance Managers from the Director of the Office of Air Compliance Coordination provides guidance for the completion and documentation of FCEs required by EPA’s CMS. Finally, a September 2, 2002 timeliness memo establishes data entry timelines to ensure that FCEs are completed in a timely manner. Through the use of these tools, EPA expects VADEQ to continue to maintain a high level performance in this area.


6a (# of files reviewed with FCEs): 37 6b (% of FCEs that meet the definition of an FCE per the CMS policy): 100% 6c (% of CMRs or facility files reviewed that provide sufficient documentation to determine compliance at the facility): 95%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

27

[CAA] Element 7 - Identification of Alleged Violations.

Degree to which compliance determinations are accurately made and promptly reported in the national database based upon compliance monitoring report observations and other compliance monitoring information (e.g., facility-reported information). Element + Finding Number

Finding The majority of VADEQ’s compliance determinations are accurate and promptly reported in AFS.

7.1




All of the violations were timely reported in AFS. In all but one case, the compliance determination in AFS vs. the file/FCE matched. In the one case, the result of an FCE indicated a violation but the facility's compliance status was not changed to "in violation" to reflect the result of the FCE. In addition, VADEQ exceeded the national goals for the date metrics that are used as review indicators (i.e., 7c1 and 7c2).


7a (Accuracy of compliance determinations): 97% 7b (Timely reporting of violations of non-HPVs): 100% 7c1 (Percent facilities in noncompliance that have had an FCE, stack test, or enforcement (1 FY)): National Goal - > ½ Nat’l average ; National Average – 21.9%; VADEQ Result – 17.9% 7c2 (Percent facilities that have had a failed stack test and have noncompliance status (1 FY)): National Goal - > ½ Nat’l average; National Average – 45.4%; VADEQ Result – 66.7%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

28

[CAA] Element 8 - Identification of SNC and HPV

Degree to which the state accurately identifies significant noncompliance/high priority violations and enters information into the national system in a timely manner. Element + Finding Number

Finding VADEQ does a thorough job in making HPV determinations and reporting HPVs to AFS in a timely manner.

8.1




The PDA (i.e., Metric 8b) had indicated a potential problem in identifying HPVs and applying the HPV Policy to violations discovered by VADEQ at SM sources. Supplemental files were reviewed that enabled the Review Team to conclude that all violations reviewed at SM sources were appropriately classified. Because all of the violations at SM sources reviewed had the correct HPV determinations (subset of Metric 8f), EPA Region 3 confirmed that VADEQ does not have a problem in identifying HPVs and applying the HPV Policy to violations discovered by VADEQ at SM sources.


3a (Percent HPVs Entered ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)): National Goal - 100%; National Average – 32.0%; VADEQ Result – 64.3%; 8a (High Priority Violation Discovery Rate - Per Major Source (1 FY)): National Goal - > ½ Nat’l average; National Average – 7.8%; VADEQ Result – 4.5% 8b (High Priority Violation Discovery Rate - Per Synthetic Minor Source (1 FY)): National Goal - > ½ Nat’l average; National Average – 0.6%; VADEQ Result – 0.1% 8c (Percent Formal Actions With Prior HPV - Majors (1 FY)): National Goal - > ½ Nat’l average; National Average – 74.6%; VADEQ Result – 84.6% 8d (Percent Informal Enforcement Actions Without Prior HPV - Majors (1 FY)): National Goal - < ½ Nat’l average; National Average – 45.7%; VADEQ Result – 25.0% 8e (Percent Failed Stack Test Actions that received HPV listing - Majors and Synthetic Minors (2 FY)): National Goal - > ½ Nat’l average; National Average – 42.8%; VADEQ Result – 7.7% 8f (% of violations in files reviewed that were accurately determined to be HPV or non-HPV): 95%

29

Action(s) None

State’s Response

30

[CAA] Element 9 - Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance

Degree to which state enforcement actions include required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other complying actions) that will return facilities to compliance in a specific time frame. Element + Finding Number

Finding VADEQ includes corrective actions in formal enforcement responses where appropriate.

9.1




All formal responses reviewed contained the documentation that required the facilities to return to compliance.


9a (# of formal enforcement responses reviewed): 8 9b (Formal enforcement responses that include required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other complying actions) that will return the facility to compliance in a specified time frame (HPVs and non HPVs)): 100%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

31

[CAA] Element 10 – Timely and Appropriate Action

Degree to which a state takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with policy relating to specific media.

Element + Finding Number

Finding

VADEQ takes appropriate timely and appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with the HPV policy.

10.1




All HPV related enforcement actions reviewed indicated that VADEQ takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions for HPVs. VADEQ is better than the national average in addressing HPVs in a timely manner as per the T & A policy.


10a (Percent HPVs not meeting timeliness goals (2 FY) ): National Goal - None; National Average – 34.8%; VADEQ Result – 30.3% 10b (Enforcement responses at HPVs (formal & informal) taken in a timely manner as documented in the enforcement files reviewed): 100% 10c (Enforcement responses for HPVs that are appropriate to the violations): 100%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

32

[CAA] Element 11 - Penalty Calculation Method

Degree to which state documents in its files that initial penalty calculation includes both gravity and economic benefit calculations, appropriately using the BEN model or other method that produces results consistent with national policy. Element + Finding Number

Finding VADEQ includes both gravity and economic benefit calculations in initial penalty calculations.

11.1




All of the files included calculations for both gravity and economic benefit.


11a (% of reviewed penalty calculations that consider and include where appropriate gravity and economic benefit): 100%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

33

[CAA] Element 12 - Final Penalty Assessment and Collection

Degree to which differences between initial and final penalty are documented in the file along with a demonstration in the file that the final penalty was collected. Element + Finding Number

Finding VADEQ’s files contain adequate documentation for the rationale between the initial and final assessed penalties and the collection of penalties.

12.1




All files reviewed contained adequate documentation for the rational between the initial and final assessed penalties. In addition, all of the files reviewed contained sufficient information documenting the collection of penalties.


12c (% of penalties reviewed that document the difference and rationale between the initial and final assessed penalty): 100% 12d (% of files that document collection of penalty): 100%

Action(s) None

State’s Response

34

RCRA Findings

[RCRA] Element 1 – Data Completeness

Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are complete. Element + Finding Number

Finding 1.1 The State met this element. We found the minimum data requirements to be complete.


Good Practice Meets SRF Program Requirements Area for State Attention Area for State Improvement (Recommendation Required)

Explanation of the Finding Data entry appears complete.


1e1 (number of new SNCs detected in last FY) State metric 10 1e2 (number of sites in SNC status in last FY) State metric 25

Action(s)

State’s Response

35

[RCRA] Element 2 – Data Accuracy Degree to which data reported into the national system is accurately entered and maintained (example, correct codes used, dates are correct, etc.). Element + Finding Number

Finding 2.1 Some minor concerns were identified with accuracy of data entry.




Data discrepancies are mostly minor in nature: - In one instance, the date of inspection was off by one day in RCRAInfo - In one instance, one verbal informal enforcement action was not entered into RCRAInfo - In one instance, a two day inspection was entered into RCRAInfo with the date of inspection being the second day; it should have been the first - In one instance, the facility was listed as a CESQG in RCRAInfo, but the facility is actually a SQG (small quantity generator)


2c (percent of files reviewed where mandatory data are accurately reflected in the national data system) State metric 91%

Action(s)

State’s Response

Overall, RCRAInfo accurately reflects the hazardous waste compliance activities conducted by VADEQ. Since the audit was completed, VADEQ has revised the data collection form at the beginning of each federal fiscal year to capture the compliance activity information for improving RCRAInfo data quality and to accurately track program performance and grant commitments. Compliance staff will be reminded of the requirements identified in this element during periodic training. Regarding the last item, DEQ staff inspected the self-identified CESQG facility and determined that it was an SQG. The status was changed in RCRAInfo as a result of the inspection. This accords with standard procedures, and there is nothing to correct.

36

[RCRA] Element 3 - Timeliness of Data Entry

Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are timely. Element + Finding Number

Finding Some minor concerns were identified associated with timely entry of SNC designations.




All outliers were complex cases in which it took time to accurately determine status. The issue seems related more to the time it took to make SNC determinations rather than problems with timeliness of data entry. For example: - In one instance, the SNC arose from violations ultimately discovered as a result of an investigation of a fish kill; it took some time to determine the nature and origin of the release which had caused the fish kill. - In one instance, the SNC arose from joint investigation with the City Fire Marshall regarding a large number of containers accumulated on-site. It was unclear if the containers contained product or waste, if the waste was hazardous waste (there were problems with analysis), and who was the owner of the waste. - In one instance, the SNC arose from a multi-media inspection performed in concert with the City Fire Marshall regarding used oil and other materials stored on-site. It was unclear if the containers contained materials which still could be used/reused, what the facility’s generator status was (and thus, what generator standards it was subject to), who the responsible party was, and the respondent’s financial ability to perform injunctive relief and pay a penalty.


3a (percent of SNCs entered into RCRAInfo more than 60 days after the determination) State metric 53.8%

State’s Response

Since the audit was completed, VADEQ has revised the data collection form at the beginning of each federal fiscal year to capture the compliance activity information for improving RCRAInfo data quality and to accurately track program performance and grant commitments. Compliance staff will be reminded of the requirements identified in this element during periodic training. The cases were complex, and the SNC determinations were timely based on the circumstances of the cases.

Recommendation

37

[RCRA] Element 4 - Completion of Commitments. Degree to which all enforcement/compliance commitments in relevant agreements (i.e., PPAs, PPGs, categorical grants, CMS plans, authorization agreements, etc.) are met and any products or projects are completed. Element + Finding Number

Finding The State met this element. Inspection commitments were met or exceeded, in spite of staff vacancies.




All enforcement/compliance commitments were completed, in spite of staff vacancies. Metric 4a: - Federal TSD inspections: 5 completed (commitment of 5) - State and local TSD inspections: 0 completed (commitment of 0) - Private TSD inspections: 5 completed (commitment of 3) - LDF inspections: 12 completed (commitment of 8) - LQG inspections: 70 completed (commitment of 50) - SQG inspections: 284 (commitment of 220) - Financial Assurance Evaluations: 32 completed (commitment of 32) - BIF inspections: 1 completed (commitment of 1) - Incinerator inspections: 2 completed (commitment of 2) - Transporter inspections: 15 completed (commitment of 10) - Compliance Assistance Visits: 52 completed (commitment of 30) Metric 4b: - The grantee agrees that all enforcement actions will be taken in accordance with the “timely and appropriate” criteria established in EPA’s December 2003 “Enforcement Response Policy (ERP).” - Encourage the regulated community to voluntarily discover, disclose, and correct violations before they are identified by regulatory agencies for inspection or enforcement response. - Provide compliance assistance activities directed at newly regulated handlers, handlers subject to new regulations, small businesses in priority industrial sectors, and other small businesses with compliance problems.


4a (planned inspections completed) 4b (planned commitments completed)

Action(s)

State’s Response

At a time of diminishing resources, VADEQ has significantly exceeded its commitments in five of the eleven categories for Metric 4a. EPA has identified no deficiencies with respect to either Metric 4a or 4b. VADEQ’s implementation of this element qualifies as a “Good Practice” and should be so evaluated.

38

[RCRA] Element 5 – Inspection Coverage Degree to which state completed the universe of planned inspections/compliance evaluations (addressing core requirements and federal, state and State priorities). Element + Finding Number

Finding The State effectively met all the core requirements for inspections and compliance evaluations, working together with EPA to deploy their combined resources.




5a - Appears acceptable. TSDs were inspected annually in accordance to negotiated agreements of the grant work plan. Three “missing” facilities were inspected during the two year period, but were not recognized by data pull as “valid” inspections, specifically: - One facility’s inspection was listed in RCRAInfo as FCI because it focused on the TSD requirements (but not generator requirements) of this TSD which is also a generator. This meets the requirement for TSD inspection once every two years. - Two facilities’ inspections were listed in RCRAInfo as FCI by the State because they were accompanying EPA-lead inspections. EPA performed inspections and entered the CEI data into RCRAInfo; this meets the requirements for TSD inspection once every two years. 5b - Appears acceptable 5c - Very minor concern. The adjusted State coverage rate is 98.4% (240/244), combined State/EPA rate is 99.2% (242/244). EPA and the State have agreed that, in an effort to get the maximum use of our combined resources, a work share approach can be used to accomplishing the goals of the compliance monitoring program. The State considers EPA’s inspection plans in developing their inspection targets, so as to make the best use possible of our limited resources.


5a (inspection coverage for operating TSDFs for two years) State metric 78.6% 5b (inspection coverage for LQGs for one year) State metric 24.4% 5c (inspection coverage for LQGs for five years) State metric 89.0%

Action(s)

State’s Response

39

[RCRA] Element 6 – Quality of Inspection or Compliance Evaluation Reports Degree to which inspection or compliance evaluation reports properly document observations, are completed in a timely manner, and include accurate description of observations. Element + Finding Number

Finding The State performs high quality inspections, and completes inspection reports in a timely manner (in consideration of case complexity and resources available).




The State does not shy away from investing their resources into complex matters, nor do they let resource considerations adversely impact the number or quality of inspections performed. 10 of 58 inspection reports reviewed did not meet the 50 day standard for timeliness, due to complexity with the investigation or due to the fact that one State Regional Office was short staffed during FY09. Metric 6b: - Inspection reports contain a narrative that has been incorporated into a very detailed and comprehensive checklist. Inspection reports include process flow diagrams, description of the process(es), and identification of all waste streams. - Nearly a quarter of the inspection reports (24%) also contained additional documentation, such as photos, manifest or shipping documents, MSDS Sheets, site maps, waste inventory, Fire Marshall’s report, and/or monitoring logs. - Two inspection reports were narrative only - these were follow up site visits to verify current conditions on-site. Metric 6c: - Of 58 inspections reports reviewed, 10 did not meet the 50 day standard for timeliness. Four of these reports were delayed due to complexity with the investigation (fish kill) or coordination with the Fire Marshalls office. In six instances the delay was due to the fact that one State Regional Office was short staffed during FY09; they chose to perform the same number of inspections which they would have, had they been fully staffed, but had to allow (due to their limited resources) for some delays in report preparation. - Of the FY09 inspection reports reviewed, the average number of days to complete an inspection report was 37; median time to complete inspection reports was 24 days.


6b (inspection reports that are complete and provide sufficient documentation to determine compliance at the facility) State metric 100% 6c (inspection reports completed with determined time frame) State metric 83%

State’s Response

Recommendation

40

[RCRA] Element 7 - Identification of Alleged Violations. Degree to which compliance determinations are accurately made and promptly reported in the national database based upon compliance monitoring report observations and other compliance monitoring information (e.g., facility-reported information). Element + Finding Number

Finding Accurate compliance determinations were made in all cases. “Late” SV determinations were a result of delays in inspection report preparation.




Accurate compliance determinations were made in all cases. “Late” SV determinations were a result of delays in inspection report preparation.


7a (inspection reports reviewed that led to accurate compliance determinations) State metric 100% 7b (violation determinations that are reported timely to the national database) State metric 96%

State’s Response

Recommendation

41

[RCRA] Element 8 - Identification of SNC and HPV Degree to which the state accurately identifies significant noncompliance/high priority violations and enters information into the national system in a timely manner. Element + Finding Number

Finding The State met this element.




Virginia's SNC rate exceeds the national average (of 3.1%). The reviewers did not find any instances where we disagreed with the State’s SNC/SV determination.


8a (SNC identification rate) State metric 3.4% 8d (violations that were accurately determined to be SNC) State metric 100%

Action(s)

State’s Response

42

[RCRA] Element 9 - Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance Degree to which state enforcement actions include required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other complying actions) that will return facilities to compliance in a specific time frame. Element + Finding Number

Finding The State’s enforcement process reliably addresses all violations with injunctive relief requirements as needed.




Enforcement actions required injunctive relief for every violation not documented as returned to compliance in advance of the issuance of the action. Metric 9b (10 SNCs identified): - In 5 instances, facilities returned to compliance prior to issuance of the formal enforcement action, thus no injunctive relief was necessary - In 2 instances, the formal enforcement action contained injunctive relief requirements - In 1 instance, formal enforcement action is pending, and proposed action includes injunctive relief requirements - In 2 instances, the facilities returned to compliance, after which time the State elected to not follow up with a formal enforcement action, thus no injunctive relief was necessary Metric 9c (46 SVs identified): - In 28 instances, the State issued Warning Letters which required a response to document each facility’s return to compliance. In all but one of these 28 cases, documentation was in the file demonstrating return to compliance. In one instance, the facility did not respond in writing to the Warning Letter; the State followed up with a re-inspection to verify return to compliance. - In 18 instances, the facility demonstrated return to compliance prior to the State’s enforcement follow up.


9b (enforcement responses that have returned or will return a SNC facility to compliance) State metric 100% 9c (enforcement responses that have returned or will return a SV facility to compliance) State metric 100%

Action(s)

State’s Response

43

[RCRA] Element 10 – Timely and Appropriate Action Degree to which a state takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with policy relating to specific media. Element + Finding Number

Finding The State has met the guidelines for timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement actions as identified in the Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy.




Metric 10c: 46 of 51 enforcement actions were taken in a timely fashion. In four instances, the State exceeded the 360 day response time guideline to enter into a final order with the violator as set forth in the Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy. In one instance, the final order is pending, and 360 days has passed. The Policy recognizes that there are circumstances which may result in an exceedance of the standard response times, and a ceiling of 20% per year has been established for consideration of cases involving unique factors that may preclude the State from meeting the standard response times. Metric 10d: All 43 SVs were addressed with appropriate enforcement action, either verbal informal or Warning Letter. All 10 SNCs were appropriately addressed (7 were addressed with a Consent Order; 1 will be addressed with a Consent Order; negotiations underway, final action pending; 1 returned to compliance, company “terminated”; no further action required; 1 returned to compliance, company had no ability to pay penalty; no further action) Metric 10a: Preliminary data review suggests that Virginia has not met the national goal, and is below the national average for this metric. Further examination reveals that one enforcement action not counted (on the data pull) should have been counted, as it involved two facilities that were handled under one formal enforcement action. Another SNC has not reached the 360 day mark. Taking these facts into account, the adjusted rate for Virginia should be 50%, which is above the national average. Issues related to timeliness of formal enforcement action are addressed under metric 10c.


10c (enforcement responses that are taken in a timely manner) State metric 90% 10d (enforcement responses that are appropriate to the violations) State metric 100%

State’s Response

Recommendation

44

[RCRA] Element 11 - Penalty Calculation Method Degree to which state documents in its files that initial penalty calculation includes both gravity and economic benefit calculations, appropriately using the BEN model or other method that produces results consistent with national policy. Element + Finding Number





Of the seven instances where a penalty was assessed, each file contained penalty calculations which consider both gravity and economic benefit, as does the file where settlement is pending.


11a (penalty calculations that consider and include gravity and economic benefit) State metric 100%

Action(s)

State’s Response

45

[RCRA] Element 12 - Final Penalty Assessment and Collection Degree to which differences between initial and final penalty are documented in the file along with a demonstration in the file that the final penalty was collected. Element + Finding Number





Each file documented the difference between the initial and final penalty. Each file documented payment of the penalty, where a non-zero dollar penalty was required. Metric 12a: Of the seven instances where a penalty was assessed, each file documented the difference between the initial and final penalty. Metric 12b: Of the six instances where (non-zero dollar) penalties were required, all files documented payment of the penalty. In the seventh instance where a penalty was “assessed”, that assessment was zero, based on financial ability to pay.


12a (formal enforcement responses that document the difference and rationale between the initial and final assessed penalty) State metric 100% 12b (enforcement files that document collection of penalty) State metric 100%

Action(s)

State’s Response

46

Clean Water Act Findings:

Element 1 — Data Completeness: Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are complete.

1-1 This finding is a(n)

Good Practice Meets SRF Program Requirements Area for State Attention Area for State Improvement – Recommendations Required

Finding The minimum data requirements are entered into the national database.

Explanation

The Non-major individual permit data is stored in DEQ’s state database, CEDs, and is not uploaded to or otherwise contained in PCS. Metric 1b1 and 1b3 did not meet the national goal of 95%. This is believed to be a data entry issue that occurs when permits are being reissued and previously permitted outfalls, no longer required, are not archived or reserved impacting the DMRS in the data system.

Metric(s) and Quantitative Value(s)

DEQ Metric National Goal 1a1-157 NA 1a2-0 NA 1a3-938 NA 1a4-3,915 (in state system, CEDS) NA 1b1- 88% limits present in nat’l database for ind. major permittees 95% 1b2- 1,201; 100% outfalls entered for individual major permittees 95% 1b3- 86% of NPDES majors with DMRs present in nat’l database 95% 1b4-0% manual override rate 1c1-0% non-major individual permit in CEDs (not required in PCS, per PPG) 1c2-is an error in linking VA permittees. This data is in CEDS 1d-DMRs for non-majors are not available in PCS to provide for evaluation of the metric. In error, the link in OTIS reports 17 of 21 non-major facilities with NC-SNC compliance schedule violations.

State Response

EPA’s Explanation and DEQ Metrics are not accurate. VADEQ has responded to EPA’s analysis in its PDA Response (August 27, 2010), in subsequent written comments on the draft SRF Report, and in a telephone conference with EPA. This element should be rated as a “Good Practice.” In FY09, VADEQ had authority over 145 major permittees, not 156. In FY09, a different agency had responsibility for 11 MS4 major permittees, in accordance with EPA’s December 30, 2004 authorization and as recognized in the Executive Summary and elsewhere in this SRF report. In FY09, DEQ was neither authorized nor able to enter data for the 11 MS4 permits into PCS. This correction alone raises metric 1b1 to 95.2% (138/145) and metric 1b3 to 93.8% (136/145) (both above the stated national averages).

47

In addition, discharge limits (metric 1b1) for the remainder of the 145 DEQ-managed major permits were correctly coded, entered into CEDS, and transmitted to PCS. When DEQ sought to confirm EPA’s PDA in August 2010, only six (not seven) remaining DEQ major facilities (145) were listed as not having correctly coded discharge limits. The discharge limits for each of the six facilities were correct, however, as follows: 1 and 2. VA0020991 and VA0090263 were both newly reissued. Discharge limits for both the old and the new permits were kept in PCS for compliance tracking purposes. The old limits are necessary to produce the EPA-required Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR). Old limits are removed once the QNCR has been completed. The need to maintain the old limits in PCS is unique to Virginia and is caused by having different outfall designators when reissuance occurs. The old limits are also necessary to maintain the DMR entry rate. 3. VA0087068 had no discharge during dry weather conditions, so no discharge limits were setup in CEDS or tracked in PCS. 4, 5 and 6. VA0090671, VA0091707, and VA0092274 had either not been built or their pipes were deactivated in PCS. No discharge limits or DMR submittals were needed. The query logic used for metric 1b1 does not replicate the entirety of limits and tracking requirements. Questions about the discharge limits for these six facilities should have been resolved in a discussion of VADEQ’s PDA Response in 2010. With respect to metric 1b3, in addition to the 11 MS4 permits, the last four permits above are not expected to have DMRs (140/145=96.6%). VADEQ responded concerning all facilities it could identify in its PDA Response in August 2010. Any remaining issues regarding metric 1b3 should have been resolved in PDA discussions at that time. In 2014, VADEQ cannot identify the remaining facilities. So far VADEQ can ascertain, all VADEQ-managed major facilities (100%) had appropriate DMR entry. All VADEQ major facility permit discharge limits (100%) were correctly coded (metric 1b1). VADEQ rated 100% on metric 1b2. All ascertainable VADEQ major facilities (100%) had appropriate DMR entry (metric 1b3). These metrics well exceed national goals and stated national averages (metric 1b1 by 35 points). This element should be rated is a “Good Practice.” Data for the Commonwealth as a whole should be presented separately from any individually authorized Virginia agency.

Recommendation(s)

48

Element 2 — Data Accuracy: Degree to which data reported in the national system is accurately entered and maintained.



Finding A comparison of the files selected for review indicated only minor gaps in NPDES compliance and enforcement reporting for permits issued and managed by VADEQ as the lead permitting and enforcement Agency.

Explanation

In FY2009 the Commonwealth issued three formal enforcement actions at majors. All 3 enforcement actions are linked to violations in PCS. This exceeds the national goal of 80% statewide. DEQs SNC rate is 1.9% well below the National Average of 22.9%.


DEQ Metric National Goal 2a- 3/3; 100% percent of major actions linked to violations 80% 2b- 23/30;77% percent of files reviewed where data is accurately reflected in N/A the data system.

State Response

EPA’s percentages for DEQ Metric 2b are not accurate. VADEQ has responded to EPA’s analysis in its PDA Response (August 27, 2010), in subsequent written comments on the draft SRF Report, and in a telephone conference with EPA. VADEQ is not required under its PPG or Water Enforcement National Database (WENDB) requirements to upload data on general permits to PCS. This element should be rated as at least “Meets SRF Program Requirements.” Regarding metric 2b, in Appendix G of the draft SRF Report, EPA states:

23/30 files reviewed had accurate data in the national database (PCS). This is due to one inspection report that could not be located; one that was not performed; 4 general permits whose data is not in the national database, but tracked in the state database, CEDS; and a CEI record that was in the database but is nonexistent.

Again, VADEQ is not required under its PPG or WENDB requirements to upload data on general permits to PCS. The data for these four facilities was properly in the state database, CEDS, raising the percentage for Metric 2b to at least 90% correct (27/30). After DEQ received the draft SRF Report in November 2013, EPA identified the “inspection report that could not be located” as VA0025143. VADEQ conducted a reconnaissance inspection of this facility on 02/02/2009, but cannot locate a copy of the report. EPA also identified the “inspection not performed” as VAG750167 (a general permit). VADEQ conducted a reconnaissance inspection of this facility on 11/10/2008, and a pdf of the report has been sent to EPA. Finally, EPA identified the “CEI record that was

49

in the database but is nonexistent” as VA0091464. Technical and Stormwater inspections of this facility were conducted on 12/10/2008, and a pdf of the reports has been sent to EPA. In sum, there is one inspection report that cannot be located, although the data is in the state database system. No other issues were noted. This raises the “percent of files reviewed where data is accurately reflected in the national data system” (metric 2b) to at least 96.7% (29/30). The written report has no impact on the accuracy of data in the national database. The Finding and Explanation compliment VADEQ’s work on Element 2, noting only “minor gaps.” The percent of major actions linked to violations is 100% (metric 2a). The SNC rate is well below the National Average. The percentage of files accurately in the national database is at least 96.7%. The facts do not support an evaluation of an “Area of State Improvement.” The draft recommendation is unrelated the issues identified, and VADEQ does not concur in the recommendation, especially to the extent it may call for entry of general permit data in the national database. This element should be rated as at least “Meets SRF Program Requirements.”

Recommendation(s)

Within 90 days from the date that the SRF report is final DEQ shall develop an SOP for data entry and verification to address data metrics for those permittees where there are discrepancies with permit limits, DMR entry and non-major permits. The SOPs should be submitted to EPA for review and comment before it is finalized. An SOP should be used moving forward and can be critical for future migration into ICIS. EPA, Region 3 will monitor data accuracy through annual data analysis. This recommendation will be closed once DEQ demonstrates accurate data entry.

50

Element 3 - Timeliness of Data Entry: Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are timely.



Finding Overall, the review team did not identify major discrepancies when comparing the PDA to the frozen data set. There were no overarching concerns regarding timeliness of data.

Explanation

The initial data metrics pull indicated that 84.7% of majors have correctly coded limits. While performing a comparison of the initial data metrics with the frozen data set, it was observed that this percentage increased to 88.5%. The National Average is 88.8%. Improvement is noted. The VA major individual permits with DMR entry rates based upon DMRs expected is at 86%. The National Average is 93.3%. a change of 6.7%. This will be monitored to ensure that the percentage does not increase. During this time when administrative penalty data was reviewed from the initial PDA, an increase by $30,620 was noted. This was later confirmed with VADEQ.


VADEQ Metric National Goal 3a-88.5% Comparison of Data Sets N/A

State Response

EPA’s “Explanation” and “Metric(s) and Quantitative Value(s) are not accurate. VADEQ has responded to EPA’s analysis in its PDA Response (August 27, 2010), in subsequent written comments on the draft SRF Report, and in a telephone conference with EPA. This element should be rated as at least “Meets Expectations.” First, the percentage of VADEQ facilities with correctly coded limits (cited by EPA as 88.5%) has been addressed in Element 1. 100% of VADEQ’s facilities had correctly coded limits at the time of the NPDES Official Data Pull (Appendix B) and throughout the review. EPA’s cited 84.7% appears to

51

come from EPA’s PDA, but does not take into account VADEQ’s PDA Response. These issues should have been resolved in a discussion of VADEQ’s PDA Response in 2010. There is no information that VADEQ was in any way untimely in entering discharge limit data into CEDS or uploading this data to PCS. Second, the percentage of VADEQ major facilities DMR entry rate has been addressed in Element 1. All ascertainable VADEQ major facilities (100%) had appropriate DMR entry (metric 1b3). Even allowing only for the MS4 facilities and the singular facilities VADEQ can identify, the percentage is 96.7%, well above the national goal and the national average. These percentages have not changed. There is no information that VADEQ was in any way untimely delayed or was delinquent in entering DMR data into CEDS or uploading this data to PCS. EPA’s statements regarding DMR entry have no bearing on the “Timeliness of Date Entry” (Element 3). EPA’s cited $30,000 correction in penalty amount refers to a three-year “informational only” metric from the PDA (W01G4S). Informational only metrics are not used directly to evaluate state programs. Upon review of the PDA, DEQ did self-correct one FY09 penalty amount (from $17,260 to $12,550). The self-correction was noted in VADEQ’s PDA Response of August 27, 2010, which should be included in the appendices to this report. DEQ self-corrected one penalty amount. VADEQ exceeded all metrics with national goals or averages. EPA has identified no other data issues. This element should be rated as at least “Meets Expectations.” Data for the Commonwealth as a whole should be presented separately from any individually authorized Virginia agency.

Recommendation(s)

52

Element 4 — Completion of Commitments: Degree to which all enforcement/compliance commitments in relevant agreements are met and any products or projects are completed.



Finding

DEQ completed 100% of their planned inspections during the review period. All major permittees in violation received timely and appropriate enforcement during the review period.

Explanation

Since 2008, VADEQ has implemented and alternate monitoring strategy, RBIS, an alternative compliance monitoring strategy that allows flexibility to the Commonwealth’s inspection targeting. The RBIS uses five elements to target inspections at facilities that pose the great risk to human health and the environment. VADEQ coordinated the development of this strategy with EPA Region 3 and EPA’s Office of Enforcement And Compliance Assurance. VADEQ received approval to implement the RBIS as a pilot, beginning in FY2009. This compliance monitoring tool allows flexibility for inspection rates over a three year period to meet CMS policy. Inspections are targeted based on the level of risk to public health, ongoing compliance matters and permittees that are the source of Citizen Complaints. During the review period, formal enforcement actions were taken at 3 majors and 8 non- majors and informal enforcement actions were taken at 54 majors and 99 non-majors. -3


DEQ Metric National Goal 4a- 100% Planned inspections complete N/A 4b- 100% Planned commitments complete N/A

State Response

Recommendation(s)

53

Element 5 — Degree to which state completed the universe of planned inspections/compliance evaluations (addressing core requirements and federal, state and State priorities).



Finding

VADEQ satisfactorily met its inspection commitment for FY’09.

Explanation

VADEQ implements a Risk Based Inspection Strategy (RBIS). This compliance monitoring tool allows VADEQ flexibility for inspection rates over a three year period to meet CMS policy. During FY-09 VADEQ opted to conduct fewer inspections at major facilities as well as exercise flexibility for selecting the type of inspections (CEI and CSI). Inspections are targeted based on the level of risk to public health, ongoing compliance matters and permittees that are the source of Citizen Complaints To accomplish their commitment, in FY’09, in accordance with their CMS and RBIS VADEQ conducted sampling inspections at 72 major and 369 non-major individual permits and 146 majors had CEI and CSI inspections at a rate of 41% and 55% respectively. VADEQ exceeded their RBIS goal, 100% of the major permittees received at least one CEI, CSI, PAI, etc. every two fiscal years. In addition to major permits, there are 3,915 general permits (i.e. minors) recorded in the Commonwealth’s system, CEDS. Records for minors are not uploaded to PCS. The total number of CEI/CSI inspections conducted in FY’09 at minors was 471.


DEQ Metric National Goal 5a- 50% Percent majors inspection coverage 100% 5b1-40% Inspections at individual non-majors N/A 5b2-12%Percent Non-major inspection coverage: general permits N/A

State Response

As clarification: VADEQ exceeded its RBIS goal: 100% of the major permittees received at least one CEI, CSI, PAI, etc. every two fiscal years, or every three years for major facilities with good compliance history (RBIS Inspection Frequency flexibility). During FY09, 369 non-major individuals were inspected (371 if including Pretreatment Audit). All records pulled directly from PCS match the records in CEDS. GP inspection records in CEDS are not uploaded into PCS. Listed below is the summary of the total numbers of inspections conducted in FY09 for the non-major Individual Permits:

Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) - 258 Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) - 102

54

Reconnaissance Inspection (RI) - 137 Compliance Follow-up Inspection – 68

A total of 565 inspections were conducted on 369 non-major individual facilities.

Recommendation(s)

55

Element 6 — Quality of Inspection or Compliance Evaluation Reports: Degree to which inspection or compliance evaluation reports properly document observations, are completed in a timely manner, and include an accurate description of observations.



Finding

Inspection reports did not comport with either the NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual or VADEQ’s Water Compliance Manual. 93% of the inspection reports reviewed included sufficient documentation detailing field observations. However, inspection reports were not considered complete and had varying degrees of absent data. Although data was absent it did not impact the ability to make a compliance determination.

Explanation

28 of 30 inspection reports reviewed were completed within 30 days and were timely but did not comport with the NDPES compliance inspection manual or VADEQ’s Water Compliance Manual. Inspection reports reviewed also included sufficient documentation detailing field observations. Information missing in the reports included: entry time, date of report, date of inspection, and/or inspector/management signature. In 2 of 30 files reviewed, one inspection report was not located in the file and the other did not have an inspection because of plans to connect to the sanitary sewer and resulting in termination of the permit.


DEQ Metric National Goal 6a-28/30, 97%Inspection reports reviewed N/A 6b-0/30 Inspection reports were complete N/A 6c-28/30, 93% Percent inspection reports reviewed with sufficient documentation for an accurate compliance determination N/A 6d-27/30, 90% Percent inspection reports reviewed that were timely N/A

State Response

Since it “did not impact the ability to make a compliance determination,” the “incompleteness” consisted of relatively minor information (e.g., facility address not included, on-site contact’s telephone number not included). This information, and much more detail, is maintained (both historical and current) in CEDS. VADEQ has been revising inspection reports and reviewing/updating the VADEQ Compliance Inspection Standard Operating Procedure. Note: The percentages for Metrics 6c and 6d are slightly higher than indicated above. RBIS flexibility was used for a facility that connected to a central sewer system and the permit was terminated. Limited inspection resources were better used elsewhere. Therefore the metrics should be based

56

on 29 inspection reports resulting in the following Metric(s) and Quantitative Value(s), including the following revised percentages: 6a-28/29, 97% Inspection reports reviewed N/A … 6c-28/29, 97% Percent inspection reports reviewed with sufficient documentation for an accurate compliance determination N/A 6d-27/29, 93% Percent inspection reports reviewed that were timely N/A With the correction, these percentages are near or above 95%.

Recommendation(s)

Inspection reports need to be complete and documented in accordance with the NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual and/or VADEQ’s Water Compliance Manual. VADEQ should evaluate inspection report procedures and make any necessary process changes to ensure that documents comport with appropriate guidance.

57

Element 7 — Identification of Alleged Violations: Degree to which compliance determinations are accurately made and promptly reported in the national database based upon compliance monitoring report observations and other compliance monitoring information.


Good Practice X Meets SRF Program Requirements Area for State Attention Area for State Improvement – Recommendations Required

Finding There were 28 inspection reports reviewed and all of the reports generally contained accurate compliance determinations. These determinations were all reported to the national database.

Explanation

Of the files reviewed, 28 of 30 (93%) inspection files documented observations which resulted in accurate violation and/or compliance determinations. Two inspection reports could not be counted because one inspection report could not be located and one had not been inspected because of plans to connect to the sanitary sewer and terminate permit coverage. The reviewers agreed with the inspection report findings of the files reviewed.


DEQ Metric National Goal 7a1-51/157, single event violations at active majors N/A 7a2-23/938, single event violations at non-majors N/A 7b-0.0% , facilities with unresolved compliance schedule violations 26.9% 7c-0.0% , facilities w/unresolved permit schedule violations 27.0% 7d-56/157, 35.6% major permittees with DMR violations 52.6% 7e-29/30, 96%, inspection reports reviewed that led to NA an accurate compliance determination

State Response

Recommendation(s)

58

Element 8 — Identification of SNC and HPV: Degree to which the state accurately identifies significant noncompliance/high priority violations and enters information into the national system in a timely manner.



Finding

Statewide, the metrics show three instances of SNC during FY’2009. Two files were evaluated during the review and it was determined that both were timely identified as SNC and data was available in the national data system within an appropriate timeframe of less than thirty days.

Explanation

Twenty-seven instances of SEVs were identified as SNC or non-SNC statewide in the national database during FY’2009. 10 files were evaluated by the review team in NRO and SWRO. 100% of the files reviewed accurately identified SNC. 2 of 2 SEVs were identified as SNC and were timely entered into the national database.


DEQ Metric National Goal 8a1- 3/157 Major permittees in SNC N/A 8a2- 2% Percent SNC rate at majors N/A8b- 10/10; 100% Percent SEVs that are accurately identified as SNC N/A or non-SNC 8c- 2/2;100% Percent SEVs identified as SNCs that are reported timely N/A

State Response

Recommendation(s)

59

Element 9 — Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance: Degree to which enforcement actions include required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other complying actions) that will return facilities to compliance in a specific time frame.



Finding Enforcement actions reviewed included corrective actions that will return the sources to compliance.

Explanation Eight enforcement actions were reviewed. Of the files reviewed, 2 facilities had been in SNC and 6 were non-SNC. All of the enforcement actions reviewed included corrective actions that have, or will return the sources to compliance.


DEQ Metric National Goal 9a-8, enforcement actions reviewed N/A 9b-2/2; 100%; enforcement responses that have/will return SNC N/A to compliance 9c-6/6 100%; enforcement responses that have/will return N/A non-SNC to compliance

State Response

Recommendation(s)

60

Element 10 — Timely and Appropriate Action: Degree to which state takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with policy relating to specific media.



Finding VADEQ met the criteria for timely and appropriate response to SNC.

Explanation

The Timely and Appropriate Response to SNC is applicable to major permittees. During the FY’2009 review period, there were three formal actions issued to major facilities and eight to non-major facilities. Of these, DEQ completed timely and appropriate enforcement actions 100% of the time.


DEQ Metric National Goal 10a-0, # of major permittees w/o timely actions <2% 10b-2/2; 100%, timely enforcement responses N/A 10c-2/2; 100%, enforcement responses that N/A appropriately address SNC violations 10d-6/6; 100%, enforcement responses that appropriately address N/A non-SNC violations 10e-6/6; 100%, timely non-SNC enforcement responses N/A

State Response

Recommendation(s)

61

Element 11 — Penalty Calculation Method: Degree to which state documents in its files that initial penalty calculation includes both gravity and economic benefit calculations, appropriately using the BEN model or other method that produces results consistent with national policy.



Finding Based on the files reviewed, DEQ evaluates gravity and economic benefit during penalty development.

Explanation

The review team observed one penalty case that considered both economic benefit and gravity in the calculation and two where economic benefit was evaluated and documented in the file. In one instance, DEQ determined there was no economic benefit derived by the facility for non-compliance. The other file documented that, “financial efforts made for inflow and infiltration (I & I) work demonstrates the expenditure of funds by the permittee.”

“ Metric(s) and Quantitative Value(s)

DEQ Metric National Goal 11a-3/3; 100%, % calculations that consider & N/A include gravity and economic benefit

State Response

Recommendation(s)

62

Element 12 — Final Penalty Assessment and Collection: Degree to which differences between initial and final penalty are documented in the file along with a demonstration in the file that the final penalty was collected.



Finding Based on the files reviewed, DEQ did not consistently document differences between the initial and final penalty but did document that the final penalty was collected.

Explanation

The review team found one case where the difference in initial penalty and final penalty had been documented and included proof of payment. The 2nd case file identified the difference between initial and final penalty, but did not contain an invoice. A third case file did not identify the difference between initial and final penalty, but did contain an invoice.


DEQ Metric National Goal 12a-2/3; 67%, % of penalties reviewed that document the N/A difference and rationale between the initial and final penalty N/A 12b-2/3;67% , % of final enforcement actions that N/A document collection of the final penalty

State Response

This element is based on a small sample size – 3 files. At its upcoming Enforcement Conference, VADEQ will review these findings with its enforcement staff and issue instructions to correct any issues regarding penalty documentation in enforcement files. Currently, a copy of each order with a penalty is sent to VADEQ’s Office of Financial Management, which tracks payments and takes action to collect overdue accounts.

Recommendation(s)

DEQ needs to ensure that a penalty matrix and complete penalty justification is provided for each enforcement file. Additionally, DEQ should ensure that records of penalty payments printed from the state invoice database, “Daily Deposit Receipts Transactions” are documented in the enforcement files.

63

APPENDIX A: STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS EPA REVIEWS Virginia First Round SRF Review Conducted in 2007

Status Due Date Media Title Finding Recommendation E# Element Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Inspection universe Definiton of an FCE as it pertains to off-site PCEs

from the previous year does not reflect EPA's recommended definition.

VADEQ should revise its definition of an FCE to reflect the EPA's recommended definition as it pertains to off-site PCEs from the previous fiscal year, e.g., the Title V semi-annual report.

E1 Insp Universe

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Inspection Univers Review team found facilities classified as major did not receive FCEs. VADEQ provided explanations.

VADEQ should continually update its CMS plan to reflect actual schedules

E1 Insp Universe

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA

Thirteen of 19 CMRs reviewed at the Valley Regional office were found to be inadequate by the review team.

VADEQ should evaluate CMRs include a complete characterization of a facility's compliance status in accordance with the April 2001 CMS Policy. VADEQ should determine if the lack of CMR FCE documentation in the files is a state-wide issue.

E2 Violations ID'ed Appropriately

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Timeliness of identifying violations

CMRs at 2 facilities in one regional office were not completed in a timely manner.

VADEQ should determine the reasons why CMRs at 2 facilities at one regional office were not completed in a timely manner. Consider benchmarking process employed at the other regional office reviewed to ensure timely completion of CMRs throughout the Comm

E3 Violations ID'ed Timely

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Identifying HPV A review of the enforcement routing slip showed the newly expanded HPV matrix criteria and "discretionary" HPV criteria are not inlcuded on the current version of the Enforcement Routing Slip.

Revise enforcement routing slip to include the most up-to-date HPV criteria.

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Reporting HPV Two HPVs in one regional office were reported to EPA late.

Determined why 2 HPVs in one regional office were reported to EPA late, and if this is an issue in the other regions. Consider developing an ASOP for reporting HPVs to EPA along with supporting documentation. Benchmark processes employed at the other reg

E4 SNC Accuracy

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA HPV Identification Two facilities were not reported to EPA as HPVs in a timely manner. The files in this regional office did not include HPV documentation.

Include copies of HPV documentation in all enforcement files.

E4 SNC Accuracy

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Identifiying HPV The review team identified 2 violations in the files report as non-HPVs that should be classified as HPV.

The 2 potential HPVs that were not identified as such should be listed and tracked in AFS as an HPV.

E4 SNC Accuracy

64

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Appropriate enforcement

Appropriate enforcement action was not taken at 2 facilities.

VADEQ should investigate why appropriate action was not taken at 2 facilities and develop procedures as necessary to correct this across the Commonwealth.

E5 Return to Compliance

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Data Accuracy Review team identified compliance status errors in AFS.

VADEQ should develop procedures to ensure that all VADEQ HPVs are listed in AFS as "out of compliance" once a violation is identified and are returned to "compliance" once the HPVs are resolved.

E11 Data Accurate

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Data Accuracy Some Title V Annual Certifications reviewed by VADEQ may be inaccurate.

VADEQ should review facilities that, according to AFS had multiple Title V Annual Certifications revewed by VADEQ for data accuracy. Update AFS as appropriate.

E11 Data Accurate

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Data Quality Some assessed penalties entered by VADEQ appear to be including portions of civil charges associated with SEPs.

VADEQ should review all formal enforcement actions executed since FY2004 that included SEPS to make sure that SEP valures are not included as assessed penalties.

E12 Data Complete

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Data complete During the file review the review team found one Title V annual certification review and 4 stack test that were not entered into AFS.

Enter the Title V certification and 4 stack test into AFS. E12 Data Complete

Completed 9/30/2008 CAA Accurate stack test data

The review team noticed that the date of the actual stack test was not reported to AFS as the date when VADEQ observes a stack test.

VADEQ should review all stack tests conducted in FY2007 to ensure that the stack testing event dates are now accurate.

E11 Data Accurate

Completed 9/30/2008 RCRA Data Quality VADEQ uses RCRAInfo enforcement action code 210 for initial 3008(a) order to indicate the date which a proposed/darft Consent Order was sent to the violating facilities. Enforcement code 210 is meant to be used for the issuance of a complaint which could

EPA and VADEQ will work together to clarify and resolve the issues regarding entry of proposed/draft Consent Orders and use of the NRR code.

E12 Data Complete

Completed 9/30/2008 CWA Inspection Universe VADEQ is conducting inspections at major and minor facilities in accordance with their grant commitments. However, VADEQ is not conducting certain types of inspections such as CEIs.

EPA and VADEQ should clarify the 106 grant agreement by providing a link between CEI and CSI inspections and the types of inspections referenced in the VADEQ Inspection Strategy. Recommendation under Element 11 - EPA and VADEQ should develop and implement

E1 Insp Universe

Completed 9/30/2008 CWA Timely Inspection Reports

There were 2 inspection reports that were not finalized due to extenuating circumstance.

If there are extenuating circumstance where VADEQ anticipates a delay in completing an inspection report, VADEQ should document the file with an explanation as to why an inspection report may not be completed in a timely manner.

E3 Violations ID'ed Timely

Completed 9/30/2008 CWA Return to Compliance In the files reviewed, only 4 of 11 (36%) actions other than formal enforcement returned the facility compliance.

If a respondent has engaged VADEQ in onsite conferences in lieu of providing a written response to Warning letters and/or NOAVs, VADEQ should document the file.


65


Multi-media Administrative Consent Orders should be clearly outlined and identify to which media/program the required complying actions are applicable.

E4 , E5

SNC Accuracy, Return to Compliance


Based upon the PCS data and the files reviewed, it appears that the issuance of numerous WLs and NOVs alone does not return facilities to compliance. VADEQ should review its policy on issuing multiple WVs and NOVs to determine its effectiveness. VADEQ s


Completed 9/30/2008 CWA Penalty calculations VADEQ assesses penalties in accordance with their current policy. VADEQ considers gravity factors and economic benefit when developing penalty calculations, however, economic benefit is not always collected.

Penalty calculations should be consistent with applicable VADEQ policy and economic benefit should be collected. VADEQ should disclose the actual economic benfit calculation as an attachment to the ERP and Water Civil Charge Worksheet. The supporting do

E7 Penalty Calculations

66

Metric

Description

Measure Type Metric Type

National Goal

National Average State Metric Count Universe

Not Counted

A01A1S

Title V Universe: AFS Operating Majors (Current) Data Quality State 269 NA NA NA

A01A2S

Title V Universe: AFS Operating Majors with Air Program Code = V (Current) Data Quality State 255 NA NA NA

A01B1S

Source Count: Synthetic Minors (Current) Data Quality State 1539 NA NA NA

A01B2S

Source Count: NESHAP Minors (Current) Data Quality State 2 NA NA NA

A01B3S

Source Count: Active Minor facilities or otherwise Fed Rep, not including NESHAP Part 61 (Current)

Informational Only State 2763 NA NA NA

A01C1S

CAA Subprogram Designation: NSPS (Current) Data Quality State 707 NA NA NA

A01C2S

CAA Subprogram Designation: NESHAP (Current) Data Quality State 18 NA NA NA

A01C3S CAA Subprogram Data Quality State 220 NA NA NA

67

Metric

Description


National Goal


Not Counted

Designation: MACT (Current)

A01C4S

CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent NSPS facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005 Data Quality State 100% 83.80% 100.00% 741 741 0

A01C5S

CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent NESHAP facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005 Data Quality State 100% 42.20% 100% 16 16 0

A01C6S

CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent MACT facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005 Data Quality State 100% 92.80% 100% 697 697 0

A01D1S

Compliance Monitoring: Sources with FCEs (1 FY) Data Quality State 503 NA NA NA

A01D2S

Compliance Monitoring: Number of FCEs (1 FY) Data Quality State 508 NA NA NA

A01D3S

Compliance Monitoring: Number of PCEs (1 FY)

Informational Only State 6,823 NA NA NA

A01E0S Historical Non- Data Quality State 151 NA NA NA 68

Metric

Description


National Goal


Not Counted

Compliance Counts (1 FY)

A01F1S

Informal Enforcement Actions: Number Issued (1 FY) Data Quality State 52 NA NA NA

A01F2S

Informal Enforcement Actions: Number of Sources (1 FY) Data Quality State 49 NA NA NA

A01G1S

HPV: Number of New Pathways (1 FY) Data Quality State 14 NA NA NA

A01G2S

HPV: Number of New Sources (1 FY) Data Quality State 13 NA NA NA

A01H1S

HPV Day Zero Pathway Discovery date: Percent DZs with discovery actions/date Data Quality State 100% 49.50% 100.0% 14 14 0

A01H2S

HPV Day Zero Pathway Violating Pollutants: Percent DZs with violating pollutant Data Quality State 100% 75.00% 100.0% 14 14 0

A01H3S

HPV Day Zero Pathway Violation Type Code(s): Percent DZs with HPV Violation Type Code(s) Data Quality State 100% 78.50% 100.0% 14 14 0

69

Metric

Description


National Goal


Not Counted

A01I1S

Formal Action: Number Issued (1 FY) Data Quality State 39 NA NA NA

A01I2S

Formal Action: Number of Sources (1 FY) Data Quality State 39 NA NA NA

A01J0S

Assessed Penalties: Total Dollar Amount (1 FY) Data Quality State $483,469 NA NA NA

A01K0S

Major Sources Missing CMS Policy Applicability (Current)

Review Indicator State 1 NA NA NA

A02A0S

Number of HPVs/Number of NC Sources (1 FY) Data Quality State ≤ 50% 59.1% 51.9% 14 27 13

A02B1S

Stack Test Results at Federally-Reportable Sources - % Without Pass/Fail Results (1 FY) Goal State 0% 1.5% 0.0% 0 124 124

A02B2S

Stack Test Results at Federally-Reportable Sources - Number of Failures (1 FY) Data Quality State 12 NA NA NA

A03A0S

Percent HPVs Entered ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY) Goal State 100% 32.0% 64.3% 9 14 5

70

Metric

Description


National Goal


Not Counted

A03B1S

Percent Compliance Monitoring related MDR actions reported ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY) Goal State 100% 52.6% 91.3% 963 1,055 92

A03B2S

Percent Enforcement related MDR actions reported ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY) Goal State 100% 67.3% 91.6% 76 83 7

A05A1S

CMS Major Full Compliance Evaluation (FCE) Coverage (2 FY CMS Cycle) Goal State 100% 87.5% 100.0% 269 269 0

A05A2S

CAA Major Full Compliance Evaluation (FCE) Coverage (most recent 2 FY)

Review Indicator State 100% 83.2% 99.6% 270 271 1

A05B1S

CAA Synthetic Minor 80% Sources (SM-80) FCE Coverage (5 FY CMS

Review Indicator State 20% - 100% 83.0% 99.6% 228 229 1

71

Metric

Description


National Goal


Not Counted

Cycle) (FY07 - FY09)

A05B2S

CAA Synthetic Minor 80% Sources (SM-80) FCE Coverage (last full 5 FY - FY05 - FY09)

Informational Only State 100% 90.3% 98.7% 230 233 3

A05C0S

CAA Synthetic Minor FCE and reported PCE Coverage (last 5 FY)

Informational Only State 80.9% 95.2% 1,506 1,582 76

A05D0S

CAA Minor FCE and Reported PCE Coverage (last 5 FY)

Informational Only State 29.7% 60.6% 3,216 5,311 2,095

A05E0S

Number of Sources with Unknown Compliance Status (Current)


A05F0S

CAA Stationary Source Investigations (last 5 FY)

Informational Only State 0 NA NA NA

A05G0S

Review of Self-Certifications Completed (1 FY) Goal State 100% 93.9% 100% 267 267 0

A07C1S

Percent facilities in noncompliance that have had an FCE, stack test, or

Review Indicator State

> 1/2 National Avg 21.9% 17.9% 99 554 455

72

Metric

Description


National Goal


Not Counted

enforcement (1 FY)

A07C2S

Percent facilities that have had a failed stack test and have noncompliance status (1 FY)


> 1/2 National Avg 45.4% 66.7% 8 12 4

A08A0S

High Priority Violation Discovery Rate - Per Major Source (1 FY)


> 1/2 National Avg 7.8% 4.5% 12 269 257

A08B0S

High Priority Violation Discovery Rate - Per Synthetic Minor Source (1 FY)


> 1/2 National Avg 0.6% 0.1% 1 1,539 1,538

A08C0S

Percent Formal Actions With Prior HPV - Majors (1 FY)


> 1/2 National Avg 74.6% 84.6% 11 13 2

A08D0S

Percent Informal Enforcement Actions Without Prior HPV - Majors (1 FY)


< 1/2 National Avg 45.7% 25.0% 4 16 12

A08E0S

Percentage of Sources with Failed Stack Test Actions that received HPV listing - Majors and Synthetic Minors (2 FY)


> 1/2 National Avg 42.8% 7.7% 2 26 24

73

Metric

Description


National Goal


Not Counted

A10A0S

Percent HPVs not meeting timeliness goals (2 FY)

Review Indicator State 34.8% 30.3% 10 33 23

A12A0S

No Activity Indicator - Actions with Penalties (1 FY)


A12B0S

Percent Actions at HPVs With Penalty (1 FY)


Greater or equal to 80% 86.7% 63.6% 7 11 4

74

PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS – RCRA

Metric Metric Description Metric Type Agency National Goal

National Average

Virginia Metric

EPA Preliminary Analysis

R01A1S Number of operating TSDFs in RCRAInfo

Data Quality State 14

Appears acceptable

R01A2S Number of active LQGs in RCRAInfo


Appears acceptable

R01A3S

Number of active SQGs in RCRAInfo

Data Quality State 4,438

Appears acceptable

R01A4S

Number of all other active sites in RCRAInfo

Data Quality State 4,605

Appears acceptable

R01A5S

Number of LQGs per latest official biennial report


Appears acceptable

R01B1S

Compliance monitoring: number of inspections (1 FY)


Appears acceptable

R01B2S

Compliance monitoring: sites inspected (1 FY)


Appears acceptable

R01C1S

Number of sites with violations determined at any time (1 FY)


Appears acceptable

75


National Average

Virginia Metric


R01C2S

Number of sites with violations determined during the FY


Appears acceptable

R01D1S

Informal action: number of sites (1 FY)


Appears acceptable

R01D2S

Informal action: number of actions (1 FY)


Appears acceptable

R01E1S SNC: number of sites with new SNC (1 FY)


Appears acceptable

R01E2S

SNC: number of sites in SNC (1 FY)

Data Quality

State

25

Appears acceptable

R01F1S

Formal action: number of sites (1 FY)


Appears acceptable

R01F2S

Formal action: number taken (1 FY)


Appears acceptable

R01G0S Total amount of assessed penalties (1 FY)

Data Quality State $125,994

Appears acceptable

R02A1S

Number of sites SNC-determined on day of formal action (1 FY)

Data Quality

State

0

Appears acceptable

76


National Average

Virginia Metric


R02A2S

Number of sites SNC-determined within one week of formal action (1 FY)

Data Quality

State

0

Appears acceptable

R02B0S Number of sites in violation for greater than 240 days


Appears acceptable

R03A0S

Percent SNCs entered ≥ 60 days after designation (1 FY)

Review Indicator

State

53.8%

Minor concern. Possible data entry/timeliness issue. All outliers are complex cases in which it took time to accurately determine status.

R05A0S

Inspection coverage for operating TSDFs (2 FYs)

Goal

State

100%

85.9%

78.6%

Appears acceptable. Preliminary data suggests that three TSDFs were not inspected by the State during the two year time frame. Two of these facilities were the subject of EPA-lead inspections during the two year period, inspections in which the State was a participant. The third facility was the subject of a State FCI inspection, in accordance with the EPA approved VA Risk-Based Inspection Strategy.

77


National Average

Virginia Metric


R05B0S Inspection coverage for LQGs (1 FY)

Goal State 20%

24.6%

24.4%

Appears acceptable

78


National Average

Virginia Metric


R05C0S Inspection coverage for LQGs (5 FY)

Goal State 100% 68.4%

89.0%

Minor concern. The State's performance far exceeds the national average. The combined State/EPA inspection rate is 99.2%, which also far exceeds the national average (of 73.8%) for this metric. Preliminary data review suggests that 28 LQGs were not inspected by the State within the five year time frame. Of these 28 facilities, 10 are no longer LQGs, 14 were the subject of a State FCI inspection, in accordance with the EPA approved VA Risk-Based Inspection Strategy, and two were the subject of EPA-lead inspection. Only 2 of 244 LQGs were not inspected during the five year time frame (one of these was inspected the next year, and one, which was first identified as a LQG in FY07 is scheduled for inspection in FY11). Taking these facts into account, the adjusted State coverage rate is 98.4% (240/244), combined State/EPA rate is 99.2% (242/244).

79


National Average

Virginia Metric


R05D0S

Inspection coverage for active SQGs (5 FYs)

Informational Only

State

7.0%

Appears acceptable

R05E1S

Inspections at active CESQGs (5 FYs)

Informational Only

418

Appears acceptable

R05E2S

Inspections at active transporters (5 FYs)

Informational Only

State

88

Appears acceptable

R05E3S

Inspections at non-notifiers (5 FYs)

Informational Only

State

20

Appears acceptable

R05E4S

Inspections at active sites other than those listed in 5a-d and 5e1-5e3 (5 FYs)

Informational Only

State

17

Appears acceptable

R07C0S

Violation identification rate at sites with inspections (1 FY)

Review Indicator

State

31.7%

Appears acceptable

R08A0S SNC identification rate at sites with inspections (1 FY)

Review indicator

State at least ½ National average

3.1%

3.4%

Appears acceptable. Virginia's SNC rate exceeds the national average.

R08B0S

Percent of SNC determinations made within 150 days (1 FY)

Goal

State

100%

75.2%

100.0%

Appears acceptable. Virginia has met the national goal for this metric.

80


National Average

Virginia Metric


R08C0S Percent of formal (initial and final) actions taken that received a prior SNC listing (1 FY)

Review indicator


60.7%

100.0%

Appears acceptable. Virginia has exceeded the national goal for this metric.

R10A0S

Percent of SNCs with formal action/referral taken within 360 days (1 FY)

Review Indicator

State

80%

40.3%

30.0%

Potential concern, supplemental review. Preliminary data review suggests that Virginia has not met the national goal, and is below the national average for this metric. Further examination reveals that one enforcement action not counted (on the data pull) should have been counted, as it involved two facilities that were handled under one formal enforcement action. Another SNC has not reached the 360 day mark. Taking these facts into account, the adjusted rate for Virginia should be 50%, which is above the national average. Issues related to timeliness of formal enforcement action will be examined further as part of the file review.

81


National Average

Virginia Metric


R10B0S

No activity indicator - number of formal actions (1 FY)

Review Indicator

State

15

Appears acceptable

R12A0S No activity indicator - penalties (1 FY)

Review indicator

State $125,994

Appears acceptable

R12B0S Percent of final formal actions with penalty (1 FY)

Review indicator


64.7%

71.4%

Appears acceptable. Virginia has exceeded the national goal for this metric.

82

APPENDIX B: NPDES OFFICIAL DATA PULL

Metric

Metric Description Metric Type

Ag ency

National Goal

National Average

Virginia Metric Prod

Count Prod

Universe Prod

Not Counted Prod

Virginia Metric Froz

Count Froz

Universe Froz

Not Counted Froz

W01A1C

Active facility universe: NPDES major individual permits (Current) Data Quality Combined 152 NA NA NA 156 NA NA NA

W01A2C

Active facility universe: NPDES major general permits (Current) Data Quality Combined 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01A3C

Active facility universe: NPDES non-major individual permits (Current) Data Quality Combined 881 NA NA NA 937 NA NA NA

W01A4C

Active facility universe: NPDES non-major general permits (Current) Data Quality Combined 48 NA NA NA 44 NA NA NA

W01B1C

Major individual permits: correctly coded limits (Current) Goal Combined

>=; 95% 64.4% 61.2% 93 152 59 88.5% 138 156 18

83

C01B2C

Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on MRs expected (Forms/Forms) (1 Qtr) Goal Combined

>=; 95% 94.6% 100.0% 1,201 1,201 0 100.0% 1,201 1,201 0

C01B3C

Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr) Goal Combined

>=; 95% 93.3% 86.6% 136 157 21 86.6% 136 157 21

W01B4C

Major individual permits: manual RNC/SNC override rate (1 FY) Data Quality Combined 0.0% 0 6 6 0.0% 0 4 4

W01C1C

Non-major individual permits: correctly coded limits (Current)

Informational Only Combined 0.3% 3 881 878 0.0% 0 937 937

C01C2C

Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Forms/Forms) (1 Qtr)


84

C01C3C

Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)


W01D1C

Violations at non-majors: noncompliance rate (1 FY)


C01D2C

Violations at non-majors: noncompliance rate in the annual noncompliance report (ANCR)(1 CY)


W01D3C

Violations at non-majors: DMR non-receipt (3 FY)

Informational Only Combined 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01E1S

Informal actions: number of major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State 22 NA NA NA 22 NA NA NA

W01E1E

Informal actions: number of major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

85

W01E2S

Informal actions: number of actions at major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State 54 NA NA NA 54 NA NA NA

W01E2E

Informal actions: number of actions at major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01E3S

Informal actions: number of non-major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State 99 NA NA NA 99 NA NA NA

W01E3E

Informal actions: number of mom-major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01E4S

Informal actions: number of actions at non-major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State 323 NA NA NA 323 NA NA NA

W01E4E

Informal actions: number of actions at non-major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

86

W01F1S

Formal actions: number of major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State 3 NA NA NA 3 NA NA NA

W01F1E

Formal actions: number of major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01F2S

Formal actions: number of actions at major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State 3 NA NA NA 3 NA NA NA

W01F2E

Formal actions: number of actions at major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01F3S

Formal actions: number of non-major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State 8 NA NA NA 8 NA NA NA

W01F3E

Formal actions: number of non-major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01F4S

Formal actions: number of actions at non-major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State 8 NA NA NA 8 NA NA NA

87

W01F4E

Formal actions: number of actions at non-major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01G1S

Penalties: total number of penalties (1 FY) Data Quality State 10 NA NA NA 10 NA NA NA

W01G1E

Penalties: total number of penalties (1 FY) Data Quality EPA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA

W01G2S Penalties: total penalties (1 FY) Data Quality State $135,153 NA NA NA $139,863 NA NA NA

W01G2E Penalties: total penalties (1 FY) Data Quality EPA $0 NA NA NA $0 NA NA NA

W01G3S

Penalties: total collected pursuant to civil judicial actions (3 FY) Data Quality State $0 NA NA NA $0 NA NA NA

W01G3E

Penalties: total collected pursuant to civil judicial actions (3 FY) Data Quality EPA $0 NA NA NA $0 NA NA NA

88

W01G4S

Penalties: total collected pursuant to administrative actions (3 FY)

Informational Only State $552,392 NA NA NA $521,772 NA NA NA

W01G4E

Penalties: total collected pursuant to administrative actions (3 FY)

Informational Only EPA $0 NA NA NA $0 NA NA NA

W01G5S

No activity indicator - total number of penalties (1 FY) Data Quality State $135,153 NA NA NA $139,863 NA NA NA

W01G5E

No activity indicator - total number of penalties (1 FY) Data Quality EPA $0 NA NA NA $0 NA NA NA

W02A0S

Actions linked to violations: major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality State

>=; 80% 66.7% 2 3 1 100.0% 3 3 0

W02A0E

Actions linked to violations: major facilities (1 FY) Data Quality EPA

>=; 80% 0 / 0 0 0 0 0 / 0 0 0 0

W05A0S

Inspection coverage: NPDES majors (1 FY) Goal State 100% 65.9% 39.5% 60 152 92 38.5% 60 156 96

89

W05A0E

Inspection coverage: NPDES majors (1 FY) Goal EPA 100% 5.9% 0.0% 0 152 152 0.0% 0 156 156

W05A0C

Inspection coverage: NPDES majors (1 FY) Goal Combined 100% 68.6% 39.5% 60 152 92 38.5% 60 156 96

W05B1S

Inspection coverage: NPDES non-major individual permits (1 FY) Goal State 35.3% 311 881 570 35.2% 330 937 607

W05B1E

Inspection coverage: NPDES non-major individual permits (1 FY) Goal EPA 0.0% 0 881 881 0.0% 0 937 937

W05B1C

Inspection coverage: NPDES non-major individual permits (1 FY) Goal Combined 35.3% 311 881 570 35.2% 330 937 607

W05B2S

Inspection coverage: NPDES non-major general permits (1 FY) Goal State 0.0% 0 48 48 0.0% 0 44 44

W05B2E

Inspection coverage: NPDES non-major general permits (1 FY) Goal EPA 0.0% 0 48 48 0.0% 0 44 44

90

W05B2C

Inspection coverage: NPDES non-major general permits (1 FY) Goal Combined 0.0% 0 48 48 0.0% 0 44 44

W05C0S

Inspection coverage: NPDES other (not 5a or 5b) (1 FY)

Informational Only State 0.0% 0 138 138 0.0% 0 136 136

W05C0E


Informational Only EPA 0.0% 0 138 138 0.0% 0 136 136

W05C0C



W07A1C

Single-event violations at majors (1 FY)

Review Indicator Combined 50 NA NA NA 51 NA NA NA

W07A2C

Single-event violations at non-majors (1 FY)

Informational Only Combined 23 NA NA NA 24 NA NA NA

W07B0C

Facilities with unresolved compliance schedule violations (at end of FY) Data Quality Combined 20.0% 0.0% 0 26 26 0.0% 0 26 26

91

W07C0C

Facilities with unresolved permit schedule violations (at end of FY) Data Quality Combined 15.6% 0 / 0 0 0 0 0 / 0 0 0 0

W07D0C

Percentage major facilities with DMR violations (1 FY) Data Quality Combined 51.4% 21.1% 32 152 120 32.7% 51 156 105

W08A1C Major facilities in SNC (1 FY)

Review Indicator Combined 3 NA NA NA 3 NA NA NA

W08A2C

SNC rate: percent majors in SNC (1 FY)

Review Indicator Combined 21.2% 2.0% 3 152 149 1.9% 3 156 153

W10A0C

Major facilities without timely action (1 FY) Goal Combined < 2% 18.8% 0.0% 0 152 152 0.0% 0 156 156

92

APPENDIX C: PDA TRANSMITTAL

Appendices C, D and E provide the results of the PDA. The Preliminary Data Analysis forms the initial structure for the SRF report, and helps ensure that the data metrics are adequately analyzed prior to the on-site review. This is a critical component of the SRF process because it allows the reviewers to be prepared and knowledgeable about potential problem areas before initiating the on-site portion of the review. In addition, it gives the region focus during the file reviews and/or basis for requesting supplemental files based on potential concerns raised by the data metrics results.

On May 4, 2010, EPA met with VADEQ to discuss the results of the CAA PDA pulled on March 25, 2010. EPA identified areas that the data review suggests the need for further examination and discussion during the SRF review process. VADEQ discussed the CAA and RCRA PDAs with EPA in 2010. VADEQ has no record of discussions with EPA on the CWA PDA response. Please see Appendix B for the NPDES PDA

APPPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS CHART

This section provides the results of the PDA. The PDA forms the initial structure for the SRF report, and helps ensure that the data metrics are adequately analyzed prior to the on-site review. This is a critical component of the SRF process because it allows the reviewers to be prepared and knowledgeable about potential problem areas before initiating the on-site portion of the review. In addition, it gives the region focus during the file reviews and/or basis for requesting supplemental files based on potential concerns raised by the data metrics results.

The PDA reviews each data metric and evaluates state performance against the national goal or average, if appropriate. The PDA Chart in this section of the SRF report only includes metrics where potential concerns are identified or potential areas of exemplary performance. The full PDA Worksheet (Appendix E) contains every metric: positive, neutral or negative. Initial Findings indicate the observed results. Initial Findings are preliminary observations and are used as a basis of further investigation that takes place during the file review and through dialogue with the state. Final Findings are developed only after evaluating them against the file review results where appropriate, and dialogue with the state have occurred. Through this process, Initial Findings may be confirmed, modified, or determined not to be supported. Findings are presented in Section IV of this report. Please see Appendix B for the NPDES and RCRA PDA

93

Clean Air Act Preliminary Analysis Chart for Virginia

Original Data Pulled from Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) on 03/25/10 EPA Preliminary Analysis

Metric Metric Description Measure Type

Metric Type National Goal

National Average

State Metric Initial Findings

A01C4S

CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent NSPS facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005 Data Quality State 100% 83.80% 100.00%

Well above national average and at the national goal of 100%.

A01C5S

CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent NESHAP facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005 Data Quality State 100% 42.20% 100%


A01C6S

CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent MACT facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005 Data Quality State 100% 92.80% 100%


A03B1S

Percent Compliance Monitoring related MDR actions reported ≤ 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY) Goal State 100% 52.6% 95.3%

40 untimely data entries. Action type “TR” (unobserved stack test) accounted for 29. Note that only 8 “TR” action types were entered. “timely” (see A03B1S (Counted)).

A07C2S

Percent facilities that have had a failed stack test and have noncompliance status (1 FY)


> 1/2 National Avg 45.4% 66.7% Well above national goal.

A08B0S

High Priority Violation Discovery Rate - Per Synthetic Minor Source (1 FY)


> 1/2 National Avg 0.6% 0.1%

Only 1 HPV identified in FY2009 was at an SM source. Additional files at SM sources with violations reported in FY2009 will be selected to examine whether the state is applying the national HPV definitions at SM sources appropriately.

94

APPENDIX E: PDA WORKSHEET (with State and EPA Comments)

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A01A1S Title V Universe: AFS Operating Majors (Current)

Data Quality State 269 NA NA NA No Operating Majors and Title V Majors are not identical. 10 majors are in the process of receiving Title V permit. 2 majors were issued permits in FY2010, 1 major’s Title V permit was revoked, and 1 major’s Title V permit application is due 08/2010.

A01A2S Title V Universe: AFS Operating Majors with Air Program Code = V (Current)

Data Quality State 255 NA NA NA No See A01A1S.

A01B1S Source Count: Synthetic Minors (Current)

Data Quality State 1539 NA NA NA No

A01B2S Source Count: NESHAP Minors (Current)


A01B3S Source Count: Active Minor facilities or otherwise Fed

Informa-tional Only

State 2763 NA NA NA No Metric is informational only and data are not required to be reported.

95

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

Rep, no including NESHAP Part 61 (Current)

A01C1S CAA Subprogram Designation: NSPS (Current)


A01C2S CAA Subprogram Designation: NESHAP (Current)


A01C3S CAA Subprogram Designation: MACT (Current)


A01C4S CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent NSPS facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005

Data Quality State 100% 83.8% 100% 741 741 0 No Well above national average and is at the national goal of 100%

A01C5S CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent NESHAP facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005

Data Quality State 100% 42.2% 100% 16 16 0 No Well above national average and at national goal of 100%

A01C6S CAA Subprogram Designation: Percent MACT

Data Quality State 100% 92.8% 100% 697 697 0 No Above national average and at national goal of 100%

96

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

facilities with FCEs conducted after 10/1/2005

A01D1S Compliance Monitoring: sources with FCEs (1 FY)

Data Quality State 503 NA NA NA No See A01D2S

A01D2S Compliance Monitoring: Number of FCEs (1 FY)

Data Quality State 508 NA NA NA No No facility with > 1 FCE in FY 2009. A01D1S pulls only active major sources while A01D2S pulls all major sources regardless of operational status.

AO1D3S

Compliance Monitoring: Number of PCEs (1 FY)

Informa-tional Only


A01E0S Historical Non-Compliance Counts (1 FY)


97

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A01F1S Informal Enforcement Actions: Number Issued (1FY)


A01F2S Informal Enforcement Actions: Number of Sources (1 FY)


A01G1S HPV: Number of New Pathways (1 FY)


A01G2S HPV: Number of New Sources (1 FY)


A01H1S HPV Day Zero Pathway Discovery date: Percent DZs with discovery action/date


A01H2S HPV Day Zero Pathway Violating Pollutants: Percent DZs with violating pollutant


98

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A01H3S HPV Day Zero Pathway Violation Type Code(s): Percent DZs with HPV Violation Type Code(s)

Data Quality State 100% 78.5% 100% 14 14

0 No Well above national average and is at the national goal of 100%

A01I1S Formal Action: Number of Issued (1 FY)


A01I2S Formal Action: Number of Sources (1 FY)


A01J0S Assessed Penalties: Total Dollar Amount (1 FY)

Data Quality State $483,469

NA NA NA No

A01K0S Major Source Missing CMS Policy Applicably (Current)

Review Indicator

State 0 1 NA NA NA No

A02A0S Number of HPVs/Number of NC Sources (1 FY)

Data Quality State < 50% 59.1% 51.9% 14 27 13 No

99

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A02B1S Stack Test Results at Federally-Reportable Sources - % Without Pass/Fail Results (1 FY)

Goal State 0% 1.5% 0.0% 0 124 124 No At national goal of 0.0%

A02B2S Stack Test Results at Federally-Reportable Sources-Number of Failures (1 FY)


A03A0S Percent HPVs Entered < 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)

Goal State 100% 32.0% 64.3% 9 14 5 No Well above national average but well short of the national goal of 100%

A03B1S Percent Compliance Monitoring related MDR actions reported < 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)

Goal State 100% 52.6% 95.3% 818 858 40 Yes “Universe” should be 858, “Count” should be 818, and “Not Counted” should be 40.

Action type “CB” is not an MDR. Action type “CR” should be revised to show stack testing events.

40 untimely data entries. Action type “TR” (unobserved stack test) accounted for 29. Note that only 8 “TR” action types were entered. “timely” (see A03B1S (Counted)).

A03B2S Percent Enforcement related MDR actions reported < 60 Days After Designation, Timely Entry (1 FY)

Goal State 100% 67.3% 91.6% 76 83 7 No Well above national average and near national goal of 100%.

100

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A05A1S CMS Major Full Compliance Evaluation (FCE) Coverage (2 FY CMS Cycle)

Goal State 100% 87.5% 100% 269 269 0 No

A05A2S CAA Major Full Compliance Evaluation (FCE) Coverage (most recent 2 FY)

Review Indicator

State 100% 83.2% 99.6% 270 271 1 No

A05B1S CAA Synthetic Minor 80% Sources (SM-80) FCE Coverage (5 FY CMS Cycle) (FY07 – FY08)

Review Indicator

State 20% -100%

83.0% 99.6% 228 229 1 No

A05B2S CAA Synthetic Minor 80% Sources (SM-80) FCE Coverage (lat full 5 FY-FY04-FY08)

Informa-tional Only

State 100% 90.3% 98.7% 230 233 3 No Metric is informational only and data are not required to be reported.

A05C0S CAA Synthetic Minor FCE and reported PCE Coverage (last 5 FY)

Informa-tional Only

State 80.9% 95.2% 1,506 1,582 76 No Metric is informational only and data are not required to be reported.

101

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A05D0S CAA Minor FCE and Reported PCE Coverage (last 5 FY)

Informa-tional Only

State 29.7% 60.6% 3,216 5,311 2,095 No Metric is informational only and data are not required to be reported.

A05E0S Number of Sources with Unknown Compliance Status (Current)

Review Indicator

State 3 NA NA NA No

A05F0S CAA Stationary Source Investigations (last 5 FY)

Informa-tional Only


A05G0S Review of Self-Certifications Completed (1 FY)

Goal State 100% 93.9% 100% 267 267 0 No At national goal of 100%

A07C1S Percent facilities in noncompliance that have had an FCE, stack test, or enforcement (1 FY)

Review Indicator

State > ½ Natio-nal Avg

21.9% 17.9% 99 554 455 No Above national goal.

A07C2S Percent facilities that have had a failed stack test and have noncompliance status (1 FY)

Review Indicator


45.4% 66.7% 8 12 4 No Well above national goal.

102

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A08A0S High Priority Violation Discovery Rate – Per Major Source (1 FY)

Review Indicator


7.8% 4.5% 12 269 257 No .

A08B0S High Priority Violation Discovery Rate – Per Synthetic Minor Source (1 FY)

Review Indicator


0.6% 0.1% 1,539 1,538 1 No Only 1 HPV identified in FY2009 was at an SM source. Additional files at SM sources with violations reported in FY2009 will be selected to examine whether the state is applying the national HPV definitions at SM sources appropriately.

A08C0S Percent Formal Actions With Prior HPV – Majors (1 FY)

Review Indicator


74.6% 84.6% 11 13 2 No

A08D0S Percent Informal Enforcement Actions Without Prior HPV – Majors (1FY)

Review Indicator

State < ½ Natio-nal Avg

45.7% 25.0% 4 16 12 No

103

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A08E0S Percentage of Sources with Failed Stack Test Actions that received HPV listing – Majors and Synthetic Minors (2 FY)

Review Indicator


42.8% 7.7% 2 26 24 No Note that this metric includes Day Zeros for failed stack tests that took place during FY2009 and two quarters prior to FY2009. Out of the 24 actions that are “not counted”, 20 of them were at SM facilities.

104

Met

ric

Met

ric

Des

crip

tion

Mea

sure

Typ

e

Met

ric

Type

Nat

iona

l Goa

l

Nat

iona

l Ave

rage

Stat

e M

etri

c

Cou

nt

Uni

vers

e

Not

Cou

nted

Stat

e D

iscre

panc

y (Y

es/N

o)

Stat

e C

orre

ctio

n

Dis

crep

ancy

E

xpla

natio

n

Initi

al

Find

ings

A10A0S Percent HPVs not meeting timeliness goals (2 FY)

Review Indicator

State 34.8% 30.3% 10 33 23 No Even though VADEQ is slightly better than the national average, they could have a minor problem addressing HPVs within the 270 day timeframe. Need to look at Timely and Appropriate (T&A) notes/conduct interviews to determine potential causes. Also, need to see if any of the 10 HPVs are joint lead HPVs.

A12A0S No Activity Indicator – Actions with Penalties (1 FY)

Review Indicator

State 39 NA NA NA No

A12B0S Percent Actions at HPVs With Penalties (1 FY)

Review Indicator

State Greater or Equal to 80%

86.7% 63.6% 7 11 4 No

105

NPDES OFFICIAL DATA PULL With State Comments All data source information came from VADEQ database

Metric Metric Description

Metric Type

Agency

Nation Goal

Nation Ave

VA Metric Prod

Count Prod

Univ Prod

Not Count Prod

State Discrepancy and explanation

State Correction Initial Finding

W01A1C Active facility universe: NPDES major individual permits (Current)

Data Quality

Combined 157 NA NA NA No discrepancy. 11 of these are MS4, managed by DCR.

N/A 27 in NRO

W01A2C Active facility universe: NPDES major general permits (Current)

Data Quality

Combined 0 NA NA NA No discrepancy. General permit information is stored and tracked in CEDS; data are not uploaded into EPA’s data system. All major facilities are issued with NPDES individual permits but may also have general permits.

W01A3C Active facility universe: NPDES non-major individual permits (Current)

Data Quality

Combined 938 NA NA NA No discrepancy. The count for non-major permits fluctuates

51 in NRO

W01A4C Active facility universe: NPDES non-major general permits (Current)

Data Quality

Combined 44 NA NA NA Discrepancy. GP information is stored and tracked in CEDS; data are not uploaded into EPA's data system (PCS). There are 11 general permits/regulations and a total of 3,915 general permit registrations.

There are 3,915 general permit registrations; records are stored in the state database. In accordance with the PPG agreement, general permit information

Needs verification.

106

does not transmit to PCS.

W01B1C Major individual permits: correctly coded limits (Current)

Goal Combined >=; 95%

88.8% 84.7% 133 157 24 Discrepancy. The 11 MS4 permits are managed by DCR; DEQ does not enter any information into PCS for the MS4 permits. As of Aug 4, 2010, the "Correctly Coded Limits" report generated from PCS shows only 3 out of the DEQ's 146 majors are "not counted or not correctly coded". The three facilities are: 1. Rohoic Creek WWTP (VA0092274) isn't built; limits are in PCS with their start dates in 2013. DMR submittal is not needed. 2. Dan River-Schoolfield Complex (VA0001261) has just recently been terminated. Permit and its limits can not be deactivated until the completion of the quarterly RNC/SNC run for QNCR. 3. Alexandria Combined Sewer System (VA0087068) has no discharge during dry weather conditions; DMR is not tracked in CEDS. Hardcopy report is submitted to the Northern regional office annually. The total number for the VADEQ "not counted" should be zero. The percentage shown does

All of the 146 DEQ managed major individual permits are correctly coded, entered into CEDS, and transmitted to PCS; none should be included in the "Not counted". Please see comment.

Culpeper, Alexandria Basham

107

not accurately reflect VADEQ managed major individual permit limit data in PCS.

C01B2C Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on MRs expected (Forms/Forms) (1 Qtr)


94.6% 100.0% 1,201 1,201 0 No discrepancy. Data discrepancy between CEDS and PCS is narrowed by routine verification of various reports pulled from PCS and CEDS.

C01B3C Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)


93.3% 86.6% 136 157 21 Discrepancy. DMRs for all DEQ managed major individual permits in PCS are up-to-date; the "Not Counted" number shown in this metric is not accurate. Besides the 11 MS4 permits (not managed by DEQ), none of the major individual permits should be listed in the "Not Counted" category. The 3 permits listed in the comment of metric W01B1C are not expected to have any DMR, therefore, should not be counted as not having any DMR entry. All of DEQ managed permits have DMR in PCS.

All of the 146 DEQ managed major individual permit DMR are entered into CEDS and transmitted to PCS; none of the 146 permits should be included in the "Not counted" column. Please see comment.

Alexandria

W01B4C Major individual permits: manual RNC/SNC override rate (1 FY)

Data Quality

Combined 0.0% 0 4 4 No discrepancy. None of the system-assigned RNC/SNC status code has been manually changed in PCS.

Town or Orange & Arlington Co.

108

W01C1C Non-major individual permits: correctly coded limits (Current)

Informational Only

Combined 0.0% 3 938 938 Discrepancy. Under the PPG agreement, VA does not upload any non-major individual permit limit information to PCS. All non-major individual permit limit data are stored and tracked in CEDS.

All of the non-major individual permit limit data are in CEDS. In accordance with the PPG agreement, information does not transmit to PCS.

C01C2C Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Forms/Forms) (1 Qtr)

Informational Only

Combined 14.3% 1 7 6 Discrepancy. Under the PPG agreement, VA does not upload non-major individual DMR into PCS. All non-major individual DMR data are stored and tracked in CEDS. Counts shown here are mistakenly linked to permits issued by Maryland. On the OTIS SRF site, MD0064556 is linked to the '1' count; two permits, MD0068187 and MD0067598, are linked to the '6' count.

All of the non-major individual DMR data are in CEDS. In accordance with the PPG agreement, DMR information does not transmit to PCS.

0 in NRO

C01C3C Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)

Informational Only

Combined 0.1% 1 941 940 Discrepancy. Under the PPG agreement, VA does not upload non-major individual DMR into PCS. All non-major individual DMR data are stored and tracked in CEDS. On the OTIS SRF site, MD0064556 is mistakenly linked to the '1' count.

All of the non-major individual DMR data are in CEDS. In accordance with the PPG agreement, DMR information does not transmit to PCS.

51 in NRO

W01D1C Violations at non-majors: noncompliance rate (1 FY)

Informational Only

Combined 2.2% 21 938 917 Discrepancy. The count in this metric is not reliable. Under the PPG agreement, VA does not upload non-major individual DMR into PCS; DMR data are not available in PCS for the evaluation of NC-RNC or non-compliance rate. The link on OTIS for this

DMR data in CEDS are not transmitted to PCS, therefore, can not be evaluated in PCS for reportable non-compliance (RNC). There was no compliance schedule violation in FY09 for any

48 NRO non-majors.

109

metric mistakenly reported 4 of the 21 with NC-RNC violations. None of the records in PCS shows any violation in compliance schedule (please see metric W07B0C) but the link on OTIS for this metric mistakenly reported 17 of the 21 non-major facilities with NC-SNC compliance schedule violations.

non-majors. The ''counted" column should be "0"

C01D2C Violations at non-majors: noncompliance rate in the annual noncompliance report (ANCR)(1 CY)

Informational Only

Combined 0/0 0 0 0 Discrepancy. Items on the ANCR CY09 are: 1. Number of non-major NPDES permittees - 934 2. Number of non-major NPDES permittees reviewed by the state - 934 3. Number of non-major NPDES permittees in Category I non-compliance - 93 4. Number of non-major NPDES permittees in Category II - 197 5. Number of formal enforcement actions taken by the state against non-major NPDES permittees - 9 5a. Dollar amount of penalties assessed by the state against these non-major facilities by the state - $114,474.94 5b. Number of non-major NPDES permittees that received administrative penalty actions from the state - 7 5c. Number of individually-permitted non-major permittees receiving either a formal action or an administrative penalty

In accordance with the PPG agreement, non-major individual permit limit and DMR information does not transmit to PCS. ANCR CY09 was submitted to EPA in March and July 2010. Please see comment for more details.

110

order, or both, in CY2009 from the state - 9 6. Number of permit modifications extending compliance deadlines granted to non-major NPDES permittees - 1 7. Number of non-major NPDES permittees which are one or more years behind in construction phases of the compliance schedule, in alphabetical order by name and permit number - 0 8. Number of non-major NPDES permittees that received informal enforcement actions from the state - 387

W01E1S Informal actions; number of major facilities (1FY)

Data Quality

State 22 NA NA NA No discrepancy. Count is accurate for FY09.

W01E2S Informal actions: number of actions at major facilities (1 FY)

Data Quality


W01E3S Informal actions: number of non-major facilities (1 FY)

Data Quality


111

W01E4S Informal actions: number of actions at non-major facilities (1 FY)

Data Quality


W01F1S Formal actions: number of major facilities (1 FY)

Data Quality


W01F2S Formal actions: number of actions at major facilities (1 FY)

Data Quality


W01F3S Formal actions: number of non-major facilities (1 FY)

Data Quality

State 8 NA NA NA No discrepancy. Count is accurate for the universe of non-major individual permits.

W01F4S Formal actions: number of actions at non-major facilities (1 FY)

Data Quality

State 8 NA NA NA No discrepancy. Count is accurate for the universe of non-major individual permits. Information for the non-major general permit is not uploaded into PCS; 15 formal actions were taken for GP in FY09.

W01G1S Penalties: total number of penalties (1 FY)

Data Quality

State 10 NA NA NA No discrepancy. Count is accurate for the universe of major and non-major individual permits. VADEQ does not upload GP info into PCS.

112

W01G2S Penalties: total penalties (1 FY)

Data Quality

State $139,863 NA NA NA Discrepancy. The amount reported in the metric includes only the total penalties of major and non-major individual permits - Total amount for FY09 should be $135,153. The penalty for Chesapeake Marine Railway LLC, VA0091294, should have been $12,550 instead of $17,260. The correct total amount has been updated in PCS and is correctly reflected on the OTIS SRF FY09 Production site. In addition, the total penalties for the GP during FY09 were $183,638.

The correct penalties for major and non-major individual permits in FY09 were $135,153. The updated amount is now correctly posted on OTIS. In accordance with the PPG agreement, GP information does not transmit to PCS. Please note that penalties for GP in FY09 were $183,638.

W01G3S Penalties: total collected pursuant to civil judicial actions (3 FY)

Data Quality

State $0 NA NA NA No discrepancy. No civil judicial action was completed in FY06-09. During this period, DEQ worked with EPA on a very large, joint Consent Decree that was completed in FY 10

W01G4S Penalties: total collected pursuant to administrative actions (3 FY)

Informational Only

State $521,772 NA NA NA Discrepancy. Several updates were made recently in the state database and PCS. The total penalties of $552,392 is now correctly posted on the OTIS SRF FY09 Production. In addition, the total penalties for GP during FY 07-09 were $481,149 with $101,971, $195,540, and $183,638 collected in FY07, FY08, and FY09, respectively.

The correct penalties for major and non-major individual permits during FY06-09 were $552,392. The updated amount is correctly reflected on OTIS Production. In accordance with the PPG agreement, GP information does not transmit to PCS. Please note that penalties for GP during FY06-09 were $481,149.

NRO collected $40,208

113

W01G5S No activity indicator - total number of penalties (1 FY)

Data Quality

State $139,863 NA NA NA Discrepancy. The total penalties for FY09 should be $135,153. The penalty for Chesapeake Marine Railway LLC, VA0091294 was recently updated in PCS due to a revision made in the state database - it is now corrected from $17,260 to $12,550. The changed total amount is correctly reflected on the OTIS SRF FY09 Production site.

The correct penalties for major and non-major individual permits in FY09 were $135,153. The updated amount is now correctly posted on OTIS. In accordance with the PPG agreement, GP information does not transmit to PCS. Please note that penalties for GP in FY09 were $183,638.

W02A0S Actions linked to violations: major facilities (1 FY)

Data Quality

State >=; 80%

100% 3 3 0 No discrepancy. Count is accurate for FY09.

W05A0S Inspection coverage: NPDES majors (1 FY)

Goal State 100% 65.9% 38.9% 61 157 96 Discrepancy. During FY09, 72 major facilities were inspected (75 if including Pretreatment Audit). Percentage listed should be subsequently higher. All records pulled directly from PCS match up with records in CEDS. Please note that certain types of inspections conducted by VADEQ can not be transmitted to PCS due to restricted PCS rules. PCS does not allow more than one inspection type to be entered into PCS if they are conducted on the same day, such as Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) or Reconnaissance

The number for the "count" column should be 72; please see comment.

RBIS allows for a 40% inspection rate and flexibility.

114

Inspection (RI) can not be entered into PCS if Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) has already been conducted that day. Listed below is the summary of the total numbers of inspections conducted in FY09 for the major Individual permits: Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) - 60 Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) - 20 Reconnaissance Inspection (RI) - 31 Compliance Follow-up Inspection - 5 Total number of inspections conducted on 72 major facilities - 116. VA complies with the goals set in the EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) dated Oct. 17, 2007 and EPA approved VADEQ Risk Based Inspection Program (RBIS) dated March 4, 2009. Among the DEQ-managed 146 majors, 41% had the Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI) completed; and 55% of these majors had CEI and/or CSI completed. VA has met and exceeded the goals stated on page 6 of the CMS: "100% of major permittees should receive at least one CEI, CSI, PAI, DI, CBI,

115

and/or XSI every two fiscal years" and "States that use this targeting model can adjust the inspection frequency for NPDES major facilities that are in compliance and are not contributing to Section 303(d) or 305(b) listings to one comprehensive inspection every three (3) years." The “100%” National Goal” listed in this metric does not reflect the goal set in CMS and is out of date.

W05A0C Inspection coverage: NPDES majors (1 FY)

Goal Combined 100% 67.5% 38.9% 61 157 96 Same comment as above.


W05B1S Inspection coverage: NPDES non-major individual permits (1 FY)

Goal State 35.0% 328 938 610 Discrepancy. During FY09, 369 non-major individuals were inspected (371 if including Pretreatment Audit). Percentage listed in this metric should be subsequently higher. All records pulled directly from PCS match up with records in CEDS. GP inspection records in CEDS are not uploaded into PCS. Listed below is the summary of the total numbers of inspections conducted in FY09 for the non-major Individual Permits: Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) - 258 Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) - 102


RBIS allows for a 40% inspection rate and flexibility.

116

Reconnaissance Inspection (RI) - 137 Compliance Follow-up Inspection - 68 Total number of inspections conducted on 369 non-major individual facilities - 565

W05B2S Inspection coverage: NPDES non-major general permits (1 FY)

Goal State 0.0% 0 44 44 Discrepancy. GP inspection records are stored and tracked in CEDS; info is not uploaded into PCS. The counts shown in the metric do not represent the number of inspections or the universe of GPs. Listed below is the summary of the total numbers of inspections conducted in FY09 for the non-major GP: Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) - 465 Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) - 6 Reconnaissance Inspection (RI) - 90 Compliance Follow-up Inspection - 19 Total number of inspections conducted on non-major GP facilities – 508.

In accordance with the PPG agreement, GP information does not transmit to PCS. A total of 3,915 general permit registrations are stored in the state database.

W05C0S Inspection coverage: NPDES other (not 5a or 5b) (1 FY)

Informational Only

State 0.0% 0 136 136 Discrepancy. The "Not Counted" VAP and VAR permits are entered by EPA region 3, not by VADEQ. The counts do not represent the universe of "NPDES other" or permits other than NPDES. The VAR permits are those of storm water industrial GP; they should not be under the category of "NPDES other". In order to distinguish major or

None of the 136 VAR (storm water industrial permit) and VAP permits listed for "Universe Prod" are entered or uploaded by DEQ. 296 VAR facilities were inspected; 14 pretreatment control authorities were audited by DEQ in FY09. All

117

non-major individual permits that have pretreatment program, EPA added an extra "P" to the permit numbers and named them "VAP". Pretreatment Audit information is uploaded into PCS.

pretreatment audit records are in PCS.

W07A1C Single-event violations at majors (1 FY)

Review Indicator

Combined 51 NA NA NA No discrepancy. Count is accurate for FY09.

4 NRO Arlington County, Noman Cole, US Marine-MCB, Quantico, Leesburg

W07A2C Single-event violations at non-majors (1 FY)

Informational Only

Combined 25 NA NA NA Discrepancy. Data were recently updated in CEDS. There should be a total of 23 non-major facilities that had at least one single event violation occurrence. Records in PCS have been updated.

Count for the "Virginia Metric Prod" column should be 23.

6 NRO - Naval Surfact Warfare, DOC-Caroline, Middleburg, Town of Orange, Hiway MHP, Evergreen Club

W07B0C Facilities with unresolved compliance schedule violations (at end of FY)

Data Quality

Combined 26.9% 0/0 0 26 26 No discrepancy. Count is accurate in FY09.

4 NRO - Fredericksburg, Arlington Cty, US Marine-Quantico, Dominion Campground

W07C0C Facilities with unresolved permit schedule violations (at end of FY)

Data Quality

Combined 27% 0 / 0 0 0 0 No discrepancy. Count is accurate in FY09.

118

W07D0C Percentage major facilities with DMR violations (1 FY)

Data Quality

Combined 52.64% 31.8% 50 157 107 Discrepancy. Counts shown in this metric vary with OTIS pulling date. The 'counted' seems to be only retrieving violations from the active records, not necessarily including violations occurred prior to permit modification or reissuance. The count, therefore, does not accurately reflect the number of violations in FY09. A total of 56 facilities had effluent violations in FY09; all records are in PCS. Percentage should be subsequently different from the figure shown in this metric.

Count for the "Count Prod" column should be 56. Please see comment.

W08A1C Major facilities in SNC (1 FY)

Review Indicator

Combined 3 NA NA NA No discrepancy. Count is accurate in FY09.

1 NRO Arlington County

W08A2C SNC rate: percent majors in SNC (1 FY)

Review Indicator

Combined 22.9% 1.9% 3 157 154 No discrepancy. Count is accurate in FY09.

1 NRO Arlington County

W10A0C Major facilities without timely action (1 FY)

Goal Combined < 2% 18.6% 0.0% 0 157 157 No discrepancy. Count is accurate in FY09.

119

F: FILE SELECTION Files to be reviewed are selected according to a standard protocol (available to EPA and state users here: http://www.epa-otis.gov/srf/docs/fileselectionprotocol_10.pdf) and using a web-based file selection tool (available to EPA and state users here: http://www.epa-otis.gov/cgi-bin/test/srf/srf_fileselection.cgi). The protocol and tool are designed to provide consistency and transparency in the process. Based on the description of the file selection process in section A, states should be able to recreate the results in the tables in section B1 for NRO and B2 for BRRO. A. File Selection Process - Air

Enclosure 2 – Methodology of VADEQ SRF File Selection (FY 2009)

I. Source: OTIS File Selection Tool

II. Northern Regional Office (NRO) Table B.1.

Representative File Selection (17 files) There were 302 compliance/enforcement records in FY2009 (Majors and SMs only). From the Table on page 2 in the SRF File Selection Protocol Version 2.0 (September 30, 2008), the range of facilities to select for review is from 15 to 30. Seventeen (17) files will be selected because the current universe of major sources is 37 sources, and the current universe of synthetic minor (SM) sources is 376 sources. Breakdown of representative files selected.

120

http://www.epa-otis.gov/srf/docs/fileselectionprotocol_10.pdf

http://www.epa-otis.gov/cgi-bin/test/srf/srf_fileselection.cgi

For this round of the SRF, EPA Region III has used the following breakdown:

- 80% of the representative files reviewed are major sources; - 20% of the representative files reviewed are SM sources.

In addition, the representative files will include a mix of facilities with various compliance history information in the national system. If a compliance monitoring file had an enforcement action associated with it, both activities will be reviewed (and vice-versa when an enforcement file had a compliance monitoring action). Note that only one major source in the Northern Region had an enforcement action in FY2009.

Major Sources (13 sources total):

1) Sources that had compliance monitoring activity but no enforcement activity: 12 2) Sources with enforcement activity but no compliance monitoring activity: 0 3) Sources with compliance monitoring and enforcement activity: 1

Synthetic Minor Sources (4 sources total):


III. Blue Ridge Regional Office (BRRO)

Representative File Selection (17 files) - Table B.2. There were 305 compliance/enforcement records in FY2009 (Majors and SMs only). From the Table on page 2 in the SRF File Selection Protocol Version 2.0 (September 30, 2008), the range of facilities to select for review is from 15 to 30. Seventeen (17) files will be selected because the current universe of major sources is 68 sources, and the current universe of synthetic minor (SM) sources is 260 sources.

121

Breakdown of representative files selected. For this round of the SRF, EPA Region III has used the following breakdown:

- 80% of the representative files reviewed are major sources; - 20% of the representative files reviewed are SM sources.

In addition, the representative files will include a mix of facilities with various compliance history information in the national system. If a compliance monitoring file had an enforcement action associated with it, both activities will be reviewed (and vice-versa when an enforcement file had a compliance monitoring action). Note that only three major sources in the Blue Ridge Region had an enforcement action in FY2009.

Major Sources (13 sources total):


Synthetic Minor Sources (4 sources total):


IV. Supplemental File Selection (3 files from each Regional Office) Supplemental files are used to ensure that EPA has enough files to look at to understand whether a potential problem pointed out by data analysis is in fact a problem. The preliminary data analysis showed the following data metric of potential concern where supplemental files could help to understand whether a potential problem pointed out by data analysis is in fact a problem:

Data Metric No. A08B0S

122

Data Metric No. A08B0S measure a state’s ability to apply the HPV definition to violations that the state has discovered at synthetic minor sources. In FY2009, VADEQ only identified one HPV at an SM source out of a possible 1,539 SM sources. Therefore an additional three (3) SM sources with enforcement activity that did not rise to the level of an HPV will be chosen.

B. File Selection

Table B. 1. File Selection – Northern Regional Office (NRO)

File Selection Category Program ID FCE PCE Violation

Stack Test

Failure Title V

Deviation HPV Informal Action

Formal Action Penalty Universe Select

2 5151000139 1 24 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 MAJR Representative 5 5110700897 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 1 15000 SM Supplemental 5 5115300143 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 23517 SM Supplemental 5 5105973515 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 4978 SM Supplemental 1 5103300040 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5105900034 1 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5105900575 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5105900743 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5109900012 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5110700125 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5110700849 1 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5113700022 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5113700027 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5115300010 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5117900029 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5168300003 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 3 5106100060 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM80 Representative 4 5113700035 1 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 SM80 Representative 3 5153000812 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM80 Representative 3 5151000133 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM80 Representative

File Selection Category

123

Table B. 2. File Selection – Blue Ridge Regional Office (BRRO)

File Selection Category Program ID FCE PCE Violation

Stack Test

Failure Title V

Deviation HPV Informal Action

Formal Action Penalty Universe Select

2 5101900003 0 19 3 0 0 1 1 1 5148 MAJR Representative 2 5112100006 0 16 3 0 0 0 0 1 3510 MAJR Representative 1 5100900022 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5102300006 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5102900016 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5103100163 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5108300046 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5108900122 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5112100065 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5114300109 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5116100181 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 1 5168000095 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAJR Representative 3 5103100071 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM80 Representative 3 5111700057 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM80 Representative 3 5159000093 1 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM80 Representative 2 5108900035 1 10 2 0 0 1 1 1 11154 MAJR Representative 5 5106700026 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 5775 SM Supplemental 5 5106700044 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2075 SM Supplemental 5 5111700009 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 9477 SM Supplemental 4 5168000097 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 10955 SM80 Representative File Selection Category 1 Major Sources with Compliance Monitoring Activity 2 Major Sources with Enforcement Activity 3 Synthetic Minor Sources with Compliance Monitoring Activity 4 Synthetic Minor Sources with Enforcement Activity 5 Synthetic Minor Sources with Enforcement Activity but no HPV.

1 Major Sources with Compliance Monitoring Activity 2 Major Sources with Enforcement Activity 3 Synthetic Minor Sources with Compliance Monitoring Activity 4 Synthetic Minor Sources with Enforcement Activity 5 Synthetic Minor Sources with Enforcement Activity but no HPV.

124

V File Selection- RCRA A. File Selection Process Using the EPA OTIS SRF file selection templates, we choose facilities which any of the following criteria for our representative sample: - Identified in SNC status during FY09 - Identified as having more than one evaluation during FY09 - Identified as having formal and/or informal enforcement action during FY09 - Identified as having a penalty during FY09 In some instances, this was supplemented with random selection of facilities with violations and/or evaluations to ensure sufficient quantity of files for review in each State Regional Office. B. File Selection Table

Enforcement Confidential Virginia Round II File Review List

ID Facility Name RCRA ID

1-1 AERUS LLC. VAD990710675

1-2 AUSTINVILLE LIMESTONE CO INC VAD053177861

1-3 EAST RIVER METALS INC VAD130529662

1-4 JERRCO, INC. SHOP VAR000517664

125

1-5 HAPCO AMERICAN FLAGPOLE VAD982572232

1-6 MAUMEE EXPRESS INC VAR000503912

1-7 MOUNTAIN MATERIALS, INC. VAR000517573

1-8 POUNDING MILL QUARRY VAR000517250

1-9 ROYAL MOULDINGS LTD VAD062357298

1-10 SANDVIK MINING AND CONSTRUCTION VAD030662324

1-11 STRATA MINE SERVICES, INC. VAR000516872

1-12 STRONGWELL - HIGHLANDS VAR000003830

2-1 AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC. VAD000019828

2-2 AMERICAN OF MARTINSVILLE, INC. VAD000797464

2-3 AUTO CRUSHERS, INC. VACESQG20907

2-4 BASSETT FURNITURE PLANT 11 VAR000014472

2-5 BONDCOTE CORPORATION VAD053182481

2-6 CEI-ROANOKE, INC. VAD982578619

2-7 CELANESE ACETATE LLC VAD005007679

2-8 INTERMET NEW RIVER FOUNDRY VAD981730930

2-9 MEHLER ENGINEERED PRODUCTS VAR000015446

2-10 OFFICE OUTLET INC. VACESQG20803

2-11 PRAGMATTIC ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS COMPANY VAR000517185

2-12 TECTON PRODUCTS ROANOKE VAR000512350

2-13 TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC CO, INC VAR000516732

2-14 VEDCO, LLC VAR000514992

2-15 WHITE'S AUTOMOTIVE, JOHN L HUFFMAN T/A VAR000008037

2-16 WOLVERINE ADVANCED MATERIALS VAD065408692

2-17 WOLVERINE ADVANCED MATERIALS VAR000001677

126

4-1 CULPEPER WOOD PRESERVERS VAR000004846

4-2 CYCLES INC VAD988175006

4-3 DYNAMIC DETAILS, INC VAD981034895

4-4 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY VAD981105752

4-5 HYDROCARBON RECOVERY SERVICES VAD980537302

4-6 KLI SITE VAD052356623

4-7 MIRANT POTOMAC RIVER L.L.C. VAD000731588

4-8 NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CORP CARLYLE PROJECT SITE VAD988203550

4-9 PALM POOLS CORPORATION VAR000517797

4-10 PAUL DECORATIVE PRODUCTS VAR000500884

4-11 US ARMY GARRISON FORT BELVOIR VA7213720082

4-12 US NAVY DAHLGREN VA7170024684

4-13 VSE - LADYSMITH BLAST & PAINT FACILITY VAD988223723

7-1 AMERICAN HOFMANN CORP VAD046955134

7-2 CHARTER OF LYNCHBURG VAD003111952

7-3 CLOVER POWER STATION VAD988187589

7-4 CRAFT COLLISION CENTER VAR000515569

7-5 DON IRBY 'S TRANSMISSIONS, LLC VAR000508689

7-6 G & V SERVICE VAD988204046

7-7 GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD PRODUCTS LLC VAR000004887

7-8 J & E FINISHING, INC. VAR000504548

7-9 JAMES RIVER EQUIPMENT VAR000006361

7-10 NICHOLS JOHN ENT DBA MAACO VAR000011049

7-11 SOLITE, LLC VAD042755082

7-12 SWEDWOOD DANVILLE, LLC VAR000515585

127

7-13 WESTOVER DAIRY VAD988186847 A. CWA-NPDES File Selection Process

The program reviewed both the NRO-Woodbridge and the SWRO – Abingdon to represent the Commonwealth’s program. NRO – Woodbridge manages a universe of 68 individual major and non-major files. Thirteen (13) files were selected for review from the File Selection Tool for NRO. SWRO manages a universe of 143 individual major and non-major permits. Twelve (12) were selected for review from the File Section Tool for SWRO. File selection in each Region was based upon the total number of available formal enforcement actions; inspection files having varying degrees of violations and SNC; and informal actions taken. For NRO, an additional supplement of five (5) permit files from a universe of 661 general permits in various industrial sectors was reviewed. These minor permits receive a compliance inspection once a permit cycle and any compliance matters can potentially go undetected for years. The permit files selected include a blend of municipal and industrial permittees. The general permits selection includes a landfill, rail yard, concrete co., dairy and a car wash.

B. CWA-NPDES File Selection Table [Notes to report authors: The file selection table is generated during using the file selection tool accessed in OTIS. Once files are selected, the tool generates a report as an Excel spreadsheet. The region will select and copy the spreadsheet and paste it into the SRF report.]

Files Selected for NRO

Program ID f_city

f_zip

Permit Type

Inspection

Violation

Single Event Violation

SNC

Informal Action

Formal Action

Penalty

Universe Select

VA0025143

ARLINGTON COUNTY

22201 0 1 10 3 1 4 0 0 Major

accepted_representative

VA0091383 LEESBURG

20147 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Major


128

VA0002071 DUMFRIES

22026 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major


VA0087891 HAYMARKET

20169 0 2 6 2 4 3 0 0 Minor


VA0025127

FREDERICKSBURG

22401 0 5 1 0 0 2 0 0 Major


VA0020974 HAMILTON

22068 0 2 0 0 0 1 1

19,638 Minor


VA0074942 LEESBURG

20176 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 Minor


VA0076392

FREDERICKSBURG

22405 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major


VA0023183 LOVETTSVILLE

20180 0 1 0 0 0 3 1

10,000 Minor


VA0070106 KING GEORGE

22485 0 6 0 0 0 12 0 0 Minor


VA0076678 LOUISA

22942 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

10,570 Minor


VA0091464 BLUEMONT

20135 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minor


VA0002151 QUANTICO

22134 0 2 1 0 0

0 0 0 Major


129

Files Selected for SWRO

ID Location Permit Type

Inspection Violation SEV SNC Informal Action

Formal Action

Penalty Facility Type

Select

VAD001015 Russell County

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Accepted Representative

VAD0020940 Big Stone Gap

0 1 7 6 0 0 1 0 Major Accepted Representative

VAD0090531 Vansant 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Major Accepted Representative

VAD0026379 Chilhowie 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Minor Accepted Representative

VAD0026565 Clintwood 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Minor Accepted Representative

VAD0067571 Haysi 0 0 5 1 4 2 0 0 Minor Accepted Representative

VAD0074161 Wytheville 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Major Accepted Representative

VAD0020745 Lebanon 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 Minor Accepted Representative

VAD021199 Richlands 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Accepted Representative

VAD0026808 Saltville 0 1 6 2 4 0 0 0 Minor Accepted Representative

130

VAD0026298 Tazewell 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Major Accepted Representative

VAD0087378 Abingdon 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 Minor Accepted Representative

131

APPENDIX G: FILE REVIEW ANALYSIS This section presents the initial observations of the Region regarding program performance against file metrics. Initial Findings are developed by the region at the conclusion of the File Review process. The Initial Finding is a statement of fact about the observed performance, and should indicated whether the performance indicates a practice to be highlighted or a potential issue, along with some explanation about the nature of good practice or the potential issue. The File Review Metrics Analysis Form in the report only includes metrics where potential concerns are identified, or potential areas of exemplary performance. Initial Findings indicate the observed results. Initial Findings are preliminary observations and are used as a basis for further investigation. Findings are developed only after evaluating them against the PDA results where appropriate, and dialogue with the state have occurred. Through this process, Initial Findings may be confirmed, modified, or determined not to be supported. Findings are presented in Section IV of this report. The quantitative metrics developed from the file reviews are initial indicators of performance based on available information and are used by the reviewers to identify areas for further investigation. Because of the limited sample size, statistical comparisons among programs or across states cannot be made.

132

Name of State:

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) Northern and Blue Ridge Regional Offices Air

Review Period: FY2009

CAA Metric # CAA File Review Metric Description: Numerator Denominator Metric Value Initial Findings

1 Metric 2c % of files reviewed where MDR data are accurately reflected in AFS. 38 40 95% The majority of the data reviewed by the EPA review team was found to be accurately

entered and maintained in AFS.

2 Metric 4a

Confirm whether all commitments pursuant to a traditional CMS plan (FCE every 2 yrs at Title V majors; 3 yrs at mega-sites; 5 yrs at SM80s) or an alternative CMS plan where completed. Did the state/local agency complete all planned evaluations negotiated in a CMS plan? Yes or no? If a state/local agency implemented CMS by following a traditional CMS plan, details concerning evaluation coverage are to be discussed pursuant to the metrics under Element 5. If a state/local agency had negotiated and received approval for conducting its compliance monitoring program pursuant to an alternative plan, details concerning the alternative plan and the S/L agency's implementation (including evaluation coverage) are to be discussed under this Metric.

NA NA 100%

The state committed to conducting a traditional CMS plan that includes FCEs at 100% of the major sources over two years and 100% of SM sources over 5 years. The state committed to conducting 269 FCEs at major sources over the FY2008 - 2009 CMS cycle. The state completed 100% of the FCEs based on the data provided in Data Metric 5a1. For SM-80 sources, FY2009 was the third year of the 5 year cycle. Therefore, the state was required to complete 60% of the SM-80 sources through FY2009. Data metric 5b1 shows that the state completed > 60% of the SM-80 FCEs.

3 Metric 4b

Delineate the air compliance and enforcement commitments for the FY under review. This should include commitments in PPAs, PPGs, grant agreements, MOAs, or other relevant agreements. The compliance and enforcement commitments should be delineated.

NA NA NA VADEQ successfully completed all commitments specified in the Oct. 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

4 Metric 6a # of files reviewed with FCEs. NA NA 37 37 FCEs were reviewed

5 Metric 6b % of FCEs that meet the definition of an FCE per the CMS policy. 37 37 100%

All 37 FCEs reviewed contained sufficient information in the CMR and/or the file to make a compliance determination. In addition all of the FCEs were completed in a timely manner. VADEQ’s Field Operations for Air Inspectors provide guidance for preparing, and conducting an FCE. CEDS generates an inspection report shell for a facility. This includes but is not limited to a complete list of applicable requirements, permit conditions, and regulated sources. The inspector is required to document his or her observations and indicate the compliance status for each applicable requirement. In addition, a March 14, 2008 memorandum to Regional Air Compliance Managers from the Director of the Office of Air Compliance Coordination provides guidance for the completion and documentation of FCEs required by EPA’s CMS. Finally, a September 2, 2002 timeliness memo establishes data entry timelines to ensure that FCEs are completed in a timely manner. Through the use of these tools, EPA expects VADEQ to continue to maintain a high level performance in this area.

6 Metric 6c % of CMRs or facility files reviewed that provide sufficient documentation to determine compliance at the facility. 35 37 95%

In general, the CMRs were well written. All but two of the 37 compliance monitoring reports (CMRs) reviewed included all of the required elements under § IX of the CMS. One of the CMRs did not mention an active HPV at the time of the FCE in the compliance and enforcement history section. Another CMR did not reference the emission units in a single section, thus making it unclear if all of the emission units were included in the FCE. Finally, in the Northern Region, the majority of the CMRs contained language such as "the source appears to be in compliance" instead of more definitive language such as "the source is either in or out of compliance".

133

CAA Metric # CAA File Review Metric Description: Numerator Denominator Metric Value Initial Findings

7 Metric 7a % of CMRs or facility files reviewed that led to accurate compliance determinations. 37 38 97%

In all but one case, the compliance determination in AFS vs. the file/FCE matched. In the one case, the result of an FCE indicated a violation but the facility's compliance status

was not changed to "in violation" to reflect the result of the FCE. The review team believes that this was an isolated incidence and believes that Virginia doesn't have a

problem in accurate compliance determinations.

8 Metric 7b % of non-HPVs reviewed where the compliance determination was timely reported to AFS. 18 18 100% All of the violations were timely reported in AFS.

9 Metric 8f % of violations in files reviewed that were accurately determined to be HPV. 21 22 95%

All but one of the violations reviewed had the correct HPV determination. Specifically, a Title V Annual Certification submitted > 60 days late was not elevated to HPV status. The EPA review team believes that this was an isolated incident and believes that Virginia doesn't have a problem in making accurate HPV determinations.

10 Metric 9a # of formal enforcement responses reviewed. NA NA 12 12 enforcement responses were reviewed.

11 Metric 9b % of formal enforcement responses that include required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other complying actions) that will return the facility to compliance in a specified time frame.

12 12 100% All formal responses reviewed contained the documentation that required the facilities to return to compliance.

12 Metric 10b % of formal enforcement responses for HPVs reviewed that are addressed in a timely manner (i.e., within 270 days). 3 3 100% All of the enforcement responses reviewed for HPVs were addressed in a timely manner.

13 Metric 10c % of enforcement responses for HPVs appropriately addressed. 3 3 100% All HPV related enforcement actions reviewed indicated that VADEQ takes appropriate

enforcement actions for HPVs

14 Metric 11a % of reviewed penalty calculations that consider and include where appropriate gravity and economic benefit. 10 10 100% All files with penalty calculations included calculations for both gravity and economic

benefit.

15 Metric 12c % of penalties reviewed that document the difference and rationale between the initial and final assessed penalty. 10 10 100% All files reviewed contained adequate documentation for the rational between the initial

and final assessed penalties.

16 Metric 12d % of files that document collection of penalty. 10 10 100% All of the files reviewed contained sufficient information documenting the collection of penalties.

134

VI. FILE REVIEW ANALYSIS CHART RCRA Program Name of State: Virginia Review Period: FY09 (10/1/08 - 9/30/09)

RCRA Metric #

RCRA File Review Metric Description

Metric Value

Initial Findings

Metric 2c

% of files reviewed where mandatory data are accurately reflected in the national data system

91% (50/55)

We found the data to be in good shape, and especially note that the State enters every step of the enforcement process into RCRAInfo (including proposed Consent Orders, revised proposed Consent Orders, and referral for enforcement). The data discrepancies were mostly very minor in nature: - Facility 1-1 - Date of inspection was off by one day in RCRAInfo - Facility 4-3 - One verbal informal enforcement action was not entered into RCRAInfo - Facility 4-12 - Two day inspection was entered into RCRAInfo with the date of inspection being the second day; it should have been the first - Facility 7-10 - Facility was listed as a CESQG in RCRAInfo, but the facility is actually a SQG (small quantity generator)

Metric 4a

Planned inspections completed (based on grant commitments)

Reported in grant end-of-year report

- Federal TSD inspections: 5 completed (commitment of 5) - State and local TSD inspections: 0 completed (commitment of 0) - Private TSD inspections: 5 completed (commitment of 3) - LDF inspections: 12 completed (commitment of 8) - LQG inspections: 70 completed (commitment of 50) - SQG inspections: 284 (commitment of 220) - Financial Assurance Evaluations: 32 completed (commitment of 32) - BIF inspections: 1 completed (commitment of 1) - Incinerator inspections: 2 completed (commitment of 2) - Transporter inspections: 15 completed (commitment of 10) - Compliance Assistance Visits: 52 completed (commitment of 30)

135

Metric 4b

Planned commitments completed (grant non-inspection commitments)

Reported in grant end-of-year report

- The grantee agrees that all enforcement actions will be taken in accordance with the “timely and appropriate” criteria established in EPA’s December 2003 “Enforcement Response Policy (ERP).” - Encourage the regulated community to voluntarily discover, disclose, and correct violations before they are identified by regulatory agencies for inspection or enforcement response. - Provide compliance assistance activities directed at newly regulated handlers, handlers subject to new regulations, small businesses in priority industrial sectors, and other small businesses with compliance problems.

Metric 6a

# of inspection reports reviewed

58

Metric 6b

% of inspection reports reviewed that are complete and provide sufficient documentation to determine compliance at the facility

100% - Inspection reports contain a narrative that has been incorporated into a very detailed and comprehensive checklist. Inspection reports include process flow diagrams, description of the process(es), and identification of all waste streams. - Nearly a quarter of the inspection reports (24%) also contained additional documentation, such as photos, manifest or shipping documents, MSDS Sheets, site maps, waste inventory, Fire Marshall’s report, and/or monitoring logs. - Two inspection reports were narrative only - these were follow up site visits to verify current conditions on-site.

Metric 6c

% of timely inspection reports reviewed

83% (48/58)

- Of 58 inspections reports reviewed, 10 did not meet the 50 day standard for timeliness (facilities 1-11, 2-1, 2-11, 2-14, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-13). Four of these reports (1-11, 2-1, 2-11, 2-14) were delayed due to complexity with the investigation (fish kill) or coordination with the Fire Marshalls office. In six instances (4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-13) the delay was due to the fact that one State Regional Office was short staffed during FY09; they chose to perform the same number of inspections which they would have, had they been fully staffed, but had to allow (due to their limited resources) for some delays in report preparation. - Of the FY09 inspection reports reviewed, the average number of days to complete an inspection report was 37; median time to complete inspection reports was 24 days.

136

Metric 7a

% of inspection reports reviewed that led to accurate compliance determinations

100% - Based on the information available, accurate compliance determinations were made in all cases.

Metric 7b

% of violation determinations in the files reviewed that are reported timely to the national database (within 150 days)

96% (49/51)

- Two SV determinations were not entered in a timely fashion (facilities 4-2, 4-3); these were both “late” as a result of delays in inspection report preparation.

Metric 8d

% of violations in files reviewed that were accurately determined to be SNC

100% - The reviewers did not find any instances were we disagreed with the State’s SNC/SV determination.

Metric 9a

# of enforcement responses reviewed

57

Metric 9b

% of enforcement responses that have returned or will return a facility in SNC to compliance

100% 10 SNCs identified: - In 5 instances, facilities returned to compliance prior to issuance of the formal enforcement action, thus no injunctive relief was necessary (facilities 1-11, 2-4, 2-12, 4-13, 7-7) - In 2 instances, the formal enforcement action contained injunctive relief requirements (facilities 4-9, 4-10) - In 1 instance, formal enforcement action is pending, and proposed action includes injunctive relief requirements (facility 2-11) - In 2 instances, the facilities returned to compliance, after which time the State elected to not follow up with a formal enforcement action, thus no injunctive relief was necessary (facilities 2-10, 2-13)

137

Metric 9c

% of enforcement responses that have or will return Secondary Violators (SVs) to compliance

100% 46 SVs identified: - In 28 instances, the State issued Warning Letters which required a response to document each facility’s return to compliance. In all but one of these 28 cases, documentation was in the file demonstrating return to compliance. In one instance, the facility did not respond in writing to the Warning Letter; the State followed up with a re-inspection to verify return to compliance. - In 18 instances, the facility demonstrated return to compliance prior to the State’s enforcement follow up.

Metric 10c

% of enforcement responses reviewed that are taken in a timely manner

90% (46/51)

46 of 51 enforcement actions were taken in a timely fashion. In four instances (for facilities 2-4, 2-12, 4-9, 4-10), the State exceeded the 360 day response time guideline to enter into a final order with the violator as set forth in the Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy. In one instance, the final order is pending, and 360 days has passed. The Policy recognizes that there are circumstances which may result in an exceedance of the standard response times, and a ceiling of 20% per year has been established for consideration of cases involving unique factors that may preclude the State from meeting the standard response times.

Metric 10d

% of enforcement responses reviewed that are appropriate to the violations

100% - All 43 SVs were addressed with appropriate enforcement action, either verbal informal or Warning Letter. - All 10 SNCs were appropriately addressed: -- 7 were addressed with a Consent Order (facilities 1-11, 2-4, 2-12, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 7-7) -- 1 will be addressed with a Consent Order; negotiations underway, final action pending (facility 2-11) -- 1 returned to compliance, company “terminated”; no further action required (facility 2-10) -- 1 returned to compliance, company had no ability to pay penalty; no further action (facility 2-13)

Metric 11a

% of penalty calculations reviewed that consider and include, where appropriate, gravity and economic benefit

100% (7/7)

Of the seven instances where a penalty was assessed, each file contained penalty calculations which consider both gravity and economic benefit, as does the file where settlement is pending.

138

Metric 12a

% of formal enforcement responses reviewed that document the difference and rationale between the initial and final assessed penalty

100% (7/7)

Of the seven instances where a penalty was assessed, each file documented the difference between the initial and final penalty.

Metric 12b

% of enforcement files reviewed that document the collection of penalty

100% (6/6)

Of the six instances where (non-zero dollar) penalties were required, all files documented payment of the penalty. In the seventh instance where a penalty was “assessed”, that assessment was zero, based on financial ability to pay.

139

File Review Analysis – NPDES

Name of State: Virginia Review Period: FY'2009

CWA Metric # CWA File Review Metric: Metric

Value Initial Findings and Conclusions

Metric 2b % of files reviewed where data is accurately reflected in the national data system.

77%

23/30 files reviewed had accurate data in the national database (PCS). This is due to one inspection report that could not be located; one that was not performed ; 4 general permits whose data is not in the national database, but tracked in the state database, CEDS; and a CEI record that was in the database but is nonexistent

Metric 4a % of planned inspections completed. Summarize using the Inspection Commitment Summary Table in the CWA PLG.

100% All major inspections were completed during FY'2009 in accordance with the approved Risk Based Inspection Strategy (RBIS). This compliance monitoring tool allows for a 40% inspection rate and flexibility to adjust the frequency of inspections based on the history of compliance.

Metric 4b

Other Commitments. Delineate the commitments for the FY under review and describe what was accomplished. This should include commitments in PPAs, PPGs, grant agreements, MOAs, or other relevant agreements. The commitments should be broken out and delineated.

N/A

In accordance with the compliance and enforcement commitments identified in VA DEQ’s FY’2009 PPG agreement, inspections have been conducted in compliance with the approved inspection targeting strategy; copies of major inspections are provided to EPA. DEQ has taken timely and appropriate enforcement at major permittees and have made copies of these actions available via DEQs webpage. Enforcement action at CSOs is ongoing with all communities having LTCPs with schedules being met. Participation in Quarterly Enforcement calls is consistent and DEQ has reduced the number of permittees on the WL that are in SNC.

Metric 6a # of inspection reports reviewed 30 25 inspection reports were reviewed. Five supplemental case files were also reviewed. In total, 30 case files (inspection and enforcement) received inspection report review.

Metric 6b % of inspection reports reviewed that are complete. 0%

In accordance with SRF criteria and guidelines found at Appendix A of the CWA Inspection Report Evaluation Guide, 0 of 30 inspection reports reviewed were complete. In all cases, the review team identified varying degrees of absent data. This included entry time, date of report, date of inspection, appropriate signature, etc.

140

Metric 6c

% of inspection reports reviewed that provide sufficient documentation to lead to an accurate compliance determination.

93% 28 of 30 inspection reports reviewed contained ample information to make an accurate compliance determination. In 28 of 30 files reviewed, one inspection report was not located in the file and the other did not receive an inspection because of plans to connect to the sanitary sewer, resulting in termination of the permit.

Metric 6d % of inspection reports reviewed that are timely. 90%

27 of 30 inspection reports reviewed were timely. In 3 of 30 files reviewed, one inspection report was not located in the file; one inspection report did not receive an inspection due to plans to connect to the sanitary sewer, resulting in termination of the permit; and one inspection report had a late final review signature.

Metric 7e % of inspection reports or facility files reviewed that led to accurate compliance determinations.

93% 28/30 inspection records reviewed documented accurate compliance determinations. In 2 of 30 files reviewed, one inspection report was not located in the file and the other did not have an inspection because of plans to connect to the sanitary sewer and resulting termination of the permit.

Metric 8b % of single event violation(s) that are accurately identified as SNC or Non-SNC.

100%

27 instances of SEV were identified statewide in the national database during FY 2009 and 10 files were evaluated during the review period. During the review EPA evaluated 1 major permit in SNC, 1 major permit in non-SNC and 5 minor permits in non-SNC in SWRO. In the NWRO the review team evaluated 1 major permit in SNC, 1 major permit in non-SNC and 1 minor permit in non-SNC. The total number of files reviewed in both offices include: 2 major permits in SNC, 2 major permits in non-SNC and 6 minor (non-major) permits in non-SNC. The definition of SNC applies to major permittees only.

Metric 8c % of single event violation(s) identified as SNC that are reported timely.

100% 2/2 SEVs were identified as SNC and reported in the national data system timely in FY’2009. This metric pertains to major facilities only.

Metric 9a # of enforcement files reviewed 8 8 enforcement files were selected for review during the FY’2009 Round 2, SRF review period.

Metric 9b % of enforcement responses that have returned or will return a source in SNC to compliance.

100% 2 of 2 enforcement responses reviewed had returned or will return a source in SNC to compliance.

Metric 9c % of enforcement responses that have returned or will return a source with non-SNC violations to compliance.

100% 6 of 6 enforcement responses reviewed had or will return sources with non-SNC violations to compliance.

141

Metric 10b

% of enforcement responses reviewed that address SNC that are taken in a taken in a timely manner.

100% 2 of 2 enforcement responses that addressed SNC were timely and within sixty (60) days.

Metric 10c

% of enforcement responses reviewed that address SNC that are appropriate to the violations.

100% 2 of 2 enforcement actions address SNC and were appropriate in relation to the violations cited.

Metric 10d

% of enforcement responses reviewed that appropriately address non-SNC violations.

100% 6 of 6 enforcement responses appropriately addressed non-SNC violations.

Metric 10e

% enforcement responses for non-SNC violations where a response was taken in a timely manner.

100% 6 of 6 enforcement responses for non-SNC violations were taken timely.

Metric 11a

% of penalty calculations that consider and include appropriate gravity and economic benefit.

100% 3/3 penalty actions were identified where gravity and economic benefit were considered.

Metric 12a

% of penalties reviewed that document the difference and rationale between the initial and final assessed penalty.

67% 2/3 enforcement actions reviewed document the difference and rationale between the initial and final assessed penalty.

142

Metric 12b

% of enforcement actions with penalties that document collection of penalty.

67% 2/3 final enforcement actions document collection of the final assessed penalty.

143

APPENDIX H: CORRESPONDENCE

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

April 8, 2010 Jerome A. Brooks Air Compliance Coordination Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 629 East Main Street P. O. Box 1105 Richmond, VA 23218 Dear Jerome:

EPA Region III is preparing for the file review, which is the next step in the State Review

Framework (SRF) process. The region is forwarding our selection of files to be reviewed (Enclosure 1).

EPA has followed the guidelines outlined in the “SRF File Selection Protocol – September

30, 2008” (protocol) when selecting the listed files. This guideline is available on EPA’s OTIS website www.epa-otis.gov/otis.

EPA is requesting 40 files for the CAA portion of the SRF. Twenty (20) files (each) from

the Blue Ridge and Northern Regional Offices. Seventeen (17) files from each region were selected under the process for determining random, representative files for review described in the protocol. The remaining three (3) files from each region were selected under the process for selecting additional files for review based on Data Metric Analysis described in the protocol. Enclosure 2 describes EPA’s file selection process in more detail.

The on-site file review will begin on May 4, 2010 in the Northern Regional Office and May

18, 2010 in the Blue Ridge Regional Office. Please have these files ready for review in their entirety. Files should include inspection reports, sampling if applicable, any enforcement documents, and penalty documentation. Please have someone available, either the inspector, case developer, or manager familiar with the files should there be any questions regarding the files. We will make ourselves available at the end of the file review should you have any questions for the review team. The review team may have follow-up questions regarding the files after returning to

144

the office and conducting a more thorough review of the files. The report will contain a file review analysis chart which will include initial findings which will be a statement about the observed performance, and whether the performance indicates a potential issue.

All information and material used in this review may be subject to federal and/or state

disclosure laws. While EPA intends to use this information only for discussions with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, we will do everything possible to prevent the release of these records. If you have any questions, please contact Kurt Elsner of my staff at 215-814-2082. Sincerely, /s/ Bernard E. Turlinski, Associate Director Enforcement & Permits Policy Enclosure 1 – File Selection VADEQ SRF Round 2 Enclosure 2 – Methodology of File Selection VADEQ SRF Round 2 cc: Samantha Beers, Director OECEJ

145

Documents

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality...Element 6.1- Quality of Compliance Monitoring Reports (CMRs) Element 7 - Identification of alleged violations Element